Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #bropenscience

Most recents (11)

As More Professional Psych Orgs Police Online Behavior (including sanctioning what they deem "bad" behavior) What Behavior Should They Be Sanctioning?

With Twitter Polls and Examples.

Thread ending in END.
Professional organizations are not govt entities. They have the *right* to make any rules they like. "Our members are forbidden to eat eggs or use the word 'blue' in any professional context" is completely legal.

The issue is what rules *should* they have, if any?
Tagging some of the leaders of two of the major orgs, SPSP, & @improvingpsych. @BrianNosek, @siminevazire, @hardsci., @katiecorker, @LindaSkitka, @RegretLab, the latter 2 who recently encouraged me to "get involved."
Here I am, with a proposal.
Read 39 tweets
IDK the source, who is anonymous, of the linked Youtube. But it is excellent. 5 Lessons to learn from the UK Vote (& the guy claimed he voted to Remain).

Summarizing bc most have lessons for the U.S.

Thread, 1/n ending in END.
Lesson 1:

Continuously calling people "racist," "fascist," "homophobic," and so on is a terrible persuasion technique.

(I'll add: #bropenscience, + all the other ists and phobics).
Lesson 2:
There is no such thing as the 48%.

For my American friends: 48% (vote to remain) tried to paint themselves as educated, logical, reasonable, and the Brexiteers as uneducated bigoted loons.

Sound familiar?
Read 7 tweets
Cohen suggested that medium effect sizes and larger should be visible to the naked eye. So let's talk about what is visible to the naked eye in the thread that Jenny (yay Jenny!) draws our attention to:
Dani--an award-winning computational cognitive scientist, with a math background so deep she could make us all look silly if she unloaded it, and a history of developing open-science resources well before it was cool--contributed to a paper offering a critique of preregistration.
The lead author, Aba, is a doc student who has co-authored TWO of the big RRR's, published in AMPPS, and helped to coauthor papers promoting other methods developments the OS community has wanted to increase usage of.
Read 12 tweets
Second day of #RepCrises2019 kicking off. First lecture, @derxen on the tone debate.
the lecture is part of the session on normative issues.
Derksen: "I find it very difficult to be normative about the tone debate."
Read 49 tweets
PART VI: In which the critics offer solutions to restore the integrity of science in the wake of the open review debacle.

This is the sixth part in an ongoing series on #bropenscience. The last thread is below. (1/)

Last time, we analyzed our roster of reflexive defenders. They're all white, all present as masculine, the median age is 50, and 4 of them are members of Heterodox Academy.

Heterodox Academy: Make the Academy Great Again. (2/)

A brief word on the ideology of #bropenscience. When reflexive defenders:
- Gush at the "marketplace of ideas" hypothesis,
- Usurp editorial authority (Niko),
- Gaslight junior scholars on Twitter,
- Invoke the term "non sequitur" to dismiss whatever causes them discomfort, (3/)
Read 21 tweets
PART V: In which we examine those reflexively defending #bropenscience to provide empirical evidence to answer renowned ancient Roman white dude Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla (c. 100-200 BC)'s famous question: "Who benefits?" (1/)
This is the fifth thread in an ongoing series on #bropenscience. The last thread is below. (2/)

We would like to thank Stuart Buck for inspiring this thread by stating that closed-reviewed journals are an "old boys' club," and implying that open review will change that (see pic).

Let's examine this claim using The Data (3/)
Read 17 tweets
PART IV: We return once again to the topic of open review processes, which allow senior reviewers to usurp discursive control from editors, plunging papers they don't like into endless debates, and exhausting junior authors in the process. (1/)

wired.com/2017/03/rogue-…
This is the fourth thread in an ongoing series. The last thread is below. It has lots of theory, but try to get through it—you need these theoretical tools to understand what's really going on in #bropenscience: (2/)

Today, we take the approach of renowned ancient Roman white dude Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla (c. 100-200 BC), known for asking the question, "Cui bono?" or "Who benefits?"

Yes, senior scholars, mostly men, mostly white. And there's another pattern. (3/)
Read 27 tweets
PART III: We return once again to the #bropenscience story, in which those who claim to move science forward through "openness" and "transparency" may actually be setting the clock back, by dismantling the long-respected tradition of closed review. (1/)
This thread is the third part in an ongoing series. Last time, we established that #bropenscience is not about nobody saying mean things in peer review ever again. It's about changing who gets to say mean things to whom. (2/)

Previous thread:
Jussim's account is still locked, and his sympathizers should take that as a hint. We'll get to them later. Today, we discuss Niko Kriegeskorte, a bropenscientist who in January 2019 usurped editorial authority in the peer review process using his blog and Twitter (3/)
Read 28 tweets
Today we return to the story of @PsychRabble (Lee Jussim) and other proponents of #bropenscience who have maliciously targeted junior researchers (recently @Abebab)

Jussim's account is still locked—he knows what he did. But this story is bigger than him. (1/)
Today's thread is about what can happen in open review, one of the core components of #bropenscience. It's a follow-on to a thread in which we examined Jussim's PsychologyToday blog—a treasure trove where he makes his hopes for #bropenscience clear (2/)

Briefly, Jussim wants to change peer review to benefit ideas like "stereotype accuracy," a theory that allows one to say horrible, cruel things, and *pass them off as science* (3/)
Read 27 tweets
The story involving @PsychRabble (Lee Jussim), @Abebab, and the hashtag #bropenscience is long. We'll catch you up--his account is locked, but his PsychologyToday blog is a gold mine. (1/?)

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Jussim has been pushing the hypothesis of "stereotype accuracy:" The (harmful) idea of "what if stereotypes are just, you know, correct?" (2/?)

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Let's take a moment to soak in the implications of the stereotype accuracy hypothesis. "Blonde women are not smart, so let's nudge them away from leadership positions and into modeling."

Horrified? You should be. (3/?)

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Read 16 tweets
I'm gonna do a small thread on: Why did I coin #bropenscience?

The shortest answer to the question is: because it’s amusing and seems to upset exactly the right people, while also drawing attention to behaviours and ideas that harm #openscience and its adoption in deep ways.
The bro-iest, wannabe macho-est (given context of course — we’re talking about scientists, so macho/bro-ism will manifest in very specific ways) people seem to get upset.
And that’s great, they are the ones that probably need to take a step back and understand that their aggressiveness and even their overrepresentation can push people away.
Read 9 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!