No he didn't. You did
Yes, agreed. Ewiz missed the point of the article.
i dont particularly care what the hoax was "supposed" to expose. for all i know the hoax authors are disingenuous and bad.
an extreme attack is that "grievance studies as a field is all crazy politics stuff and they will publish literally anything"
a more conservative attack is that "these "greivance studies journals" apparently dont have enough academic integrity to sniff out obvious hoaxes"
the second form is still kind of a problem i think.
its like a turing test
if the journals claim to publish valuable and legitimate research but the valuable and legitimate research is apparently rather difficult to distinguish from crazy hoax stuff might that point to some underlying issue?
this seems to me the most valuable point made by the hoax incident. and if the disadvantagedness of the field due to opposition from the orthodoxy among other things plays a major factor in why this happened thats well and good but doesnt make it much less concerning with regard to the other research published in said journals.
anyway thats what i think is missing from the critique, it characterizes the orthodox-establishment enemy suppressing the fields; questions the validity of the hoaxers' methods and the motivations of those supporting it, describes how the fields are disadvantaged, but it doesnt address what i see as the meat of the hoaxers' result
which is "lol these journals published really dumb stuff why should i believe anything they publish now"
Wow, you finally realized what those who perpetrated the hoax said the point was. Hint: this actually matters and what their point was is necessary to effectively refuting it
But that wasn't the point they were making, nor what Pinker, Peterson, etc were saying
Yes it does. Hint: it's the citations that this happens in every field. That it happens constantly in every field. That it's unavoidable
its a matter of degrees. can you give me one example of a hoax-paper of similar qualitative absurdity in your opinion, in a more "orthodox" discipline? its just your opinion so im not gonna retroactively declare whatever example you come up with as not sufficiently absurd. i just want to know what you think
in comparison to this one
http://norskk.is/bytta/menn/dog_park.pdf
The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decisionmaking in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality.
why it is qualitatively absurd: humans are not dogs.
My friends call me a dirty dog all the time!
I think it is more along the lines of - standards of academic rigor, evidence, logical consistency or even common sense are thrown out the window for a paper that hits the right political notes.
In short: if this agrees with modern political trends it will be published as serious academic thought, quoted in other papers, repeated as "fact" and built into intersectional curricula - despite basic academic & logical shortcomings such as presenting low quality evidence/data, data which does not support the claims, obviously fictional data or observations which can't be reproduced or falsified (a real and independent problem in academic literature), or just an overall clearly preposterous thesis.
Examples (actual published papers)
Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon
Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use
Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding
An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant
You called?
1 Like
Driving my girlfriends car. Mine is in the shop
im rolling with the preposterous thesis thing here, because yeah falsification of data etc. is a problem in all disciplines. it just seems to me in this case that it fails basic sanity checks. as in you should read the abstract, think about it for a while, then conclude it is obviously silly. so the failure of the journals to do that means either
- they have unacceptably low standards
- their real research is difficult to distinguish from things i think are obviously silly
the second one could be the cultural issue where orthodox people like you and me are just allergic to stuff that sounds like "grievance fields". but come on! humans are not dogs.
Not a fan. It barely fits xl pizzas
cultural turing test: can we reliably distinguish "god is a lobster" (legit) from "humans are dogs" (not legit)
Didn't we already hammer through your thick skull that your "common-sense" is useless in specialized academic fields?
are you saying that for people studied in these academic fields, the hoax articles no longer seem obviously silly from common-sense?
i.e. when you read the papers you find it difficult to distinguish them from real ones at face value?
A true marvel that asoul posts this shit without realizing the critique of positivist data fetishism was already directly in the article, applies to Pinker's and Peterson's work just as much, and applies to the hoax even moreso
Brief: Studied dogs humping each other in dog parks in order to understand rape culture, with the conclusion that men need to be trained like dogs in order to not rape.
Bad evidence: Claimed to observe thousands of instances of dog humping in dog parks around Portland, then inspect each dog's genitals in order to form conclusions about the owner's biases w.r.t. homosexual dog humping. Are owners more likely to prevent male-on-male dog humping? Is that because the owners are homophobic? Are the dogs experiencing unfair gender standards placed on them by their homophobic owners? Never mind that it was ridiculous in the first place to claim they had observed the genitals of 10,000 dogs and collected all these observations and data from humping in dog parks.
The moment from their documentary where 'Dog Parks' was accepted. (6min vid)
And Helen weighs in on the paper (2min vid)
1 Like