Thread by @RealPeerReview

We were informed in DMs that the article on "objectification" we previously discussed is not "bleeding edge of state of the art" and the actual bleeding edge of objectification research is this work (linked), so let's have a field day journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/14…

/1

the paper contains more red flags than a Soviet flag factory, with lots of claims that are reminiscent of good old priming. However, we decided to jump right into the fray and see what were the tools for "detecting" the so-called self-"objectification" that were "deployed"/2

So, without further ado, what are these subscales like? web.archive.org/web/2022000000… /3

Frankly, one can only believe that any context-free answer on these scales can be evidence for Fredrickson and Roberts's self-objectification theory (notion that women are brainwashed into assuming "observer perspective", objectification "brand" authors use) only if one already/4

believes Fredrickson and Roberts's speculations to be correct 😏 (very much like the old chestnut of "in order to perceive the evidence of god's existence you must accept Scripture as true Word in your heart", such a classic scam 🤡), and if one at least tries to be slightly /5

saner about it one would have to try interpreting it in specific respondent context which is 1) very hard 2) wasn't done by authors and
3) is exactly the problem our admin once spotted with another, unrelated "bleeding edge" instrument

https://twitter.com/0knaomi/status/1447644638299541505

/6

(which is to say, in simpler terms, that whether response to, say "I feel ashamed of myself when 1 haven’t made the effort to look my best" indicates evil patriarchal brainwashing into perilous self-monitoring or presence of basic hygiene and unwillingness to be the reason why /7

some conferences "reserve the right to remove attendees and speakers with offensive bodily odor and dirt smears affecting furniture" 😅😏 (actual warning one of our contributors encountered in the wild at an academic event by the way) /8

depends on respondent-specific context and attempts to derive such judgment in a context-free manner, whether at individual respondent or group level, are ludicrous.
Same problem (albeit in much more severe form) is also present in the Body Consciousness Questionnaire which /9

authors use to produce an unpublished statistical slurry they employed to evaluate "poor man's Alexithymia" (of course, with a better paper we would have docked some points for citing an /10

unpublished instrument that was only "presented" at "Midwestern Psychological Association Conference, Chicago IL" and then lost to the ages without DOI or online link, never to be objectifyingly gazed upon by eyes of man or woman or dog ever again 🤣 but given that this paper /11

is a gigantic tire fire of enormous proportion (bleeding edge of burning vulcanized rubber at planetary scale, a tire fire so big it has its own climate system) this little hilarious prank on behalf of the authors barely even registers) /12

Of course, one might also assume that authors (and/or the Fredrickson and Roberts dynamic duo) deem context irrelevant because they see all aesthetic and functional bodily concerns as inappropriate and unacceptable for a trained feminist /13

whether "uncanny disheveled slob with body odor akin to the aromatic blend of a U.S. Marine's socks" is proper way for a trained feminist to be is perhaps best settled by the people in question and should probably be outside the scope of academic inquiry altogether 🤡💩 /14

So much for "state of the art"

So much for "bleeding" edge (we now seriously suspect it is not blood staining the edge)

FIN