"Here's why I think X is true"
"No, it's obviously wrong"
"Here's an exhaustive literature review with widespread empirical research that strongly suggests its true"
"No it's obviously wrong"
"Why"
"It's obvious"
"Are you going to engage with the cited sources?"
"No it's obvious"
"No, it's obviously wrong"
"Here's an exhaustive literature review with widespread empirical research that strongly suggests its true"
"No it's obviously wrong"
"Why"
"It's obvious"
"Are you going to engage with the cited sources?"
"No it's obvious"
Look I am not the smartest guy in the world and I am often wrong about things -- sometimes even *provably* wrong -- but please at least make an effort here sheesh
Point out some flaws in the studies. Question the evidence, kick the methodology in the nuts. But please do SOMETHING other than just continue to assert nothing but your own theories over and over again
I SPENT FIVE MONTHS ON THIS DEAR LORD I WILL MAKE YOU SPEND FIVE MINUTES
The worst pattern is this one:
"We can't do X it will be super bad and cause Y."
"So are you committing to a testable hypothesis that if we do X, we will see bad effect Y?"
"You can't test these things"
"So if we do X it will cause bad effect Y, but we won't be able to notice?"
"We can't do X it will be super bad and cause Y."
"So are you committing to a testable hypothesis that if we do X, we will see bad effect Y?"
"You can't test these things"
"So if we do X it will cause bad effect Y, but we won't be able to notice?"
Like seriously there's a formulation of this that maybe makes sense. Are you raising the endogeneity issue? Then raise that!
Do SOMETHING! Don't just assert horrible no good very bad things will happen that we have no way of ever empirically verifying, but you're still right.
Do SOMETHING! Don't just assert horrible no good very bad things will happen that we have no way of ever empirically verifying, but you're still right.
Like if the problems are sufficiently horrible you seem to be arguing that the effect size is quite large! Presumably we might notice that. And you seem to be asserting a strong, direct, causal connection!
If your argument is that we won't be able to test or notice you seem to actually be arguing that the effect size is small, or that the causal chain is weak?
Look I'm not a statistics expert but it seems to me what you're actually arguing is the intervention mostly does nothing
Look I'm not a statistics expert but it seems to me what you're actually arguing is the intervention mostly does nothing
So which is it? The effect size is very large and the causal connection is strong and the effect is very bad, so we can't do it, or that the intervention is pointless because we won't be able to measure it?
What am I missing here? Genuinely, please someone tell me.
What am I missing here? Genuinely, please someone tell me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
