Abdul Basit Adeel et al.

Spite. Pure spite!

@jessesmithsoc Saying social science is a pursuit of “truth” is equating it with natural sciences, which is a fallacy. To abuse Nitsche, there are no truths, only perspectives. If I am not mistaken, the idea of liberal arts has social justice embedded i.e, producing free citizens, full rights?

@jessesmithsoc Same goes for the “Athenian” or “Confucian” philosophy. Indeed what is made up is the modern labels of “liberal” and “conservative”. Liberal according to who and conserving what? Our thoughts are embodied in experience and embedded in sociality. We don't think in vacuum?

So, basically DEI for folks who (not all, but most) believe DEI has/d zero net benefits 😊 Note: not insinuating that my friend Jesse is one of those. Instead he is making a valid intellectual point, yet the irony of the situation needs to be pointed out.

@jessesmithsoc DEI statements were indeed a mess. Bureaucratic solution to an actual problem, and such solution don't work. Asking people to 'prove' they are not bigots is just stupid.

Having said this, I’ll also acknowledge that there could have been a version of DEI that came closer to the current “viewpoint diversity” push, and if that version had prevailed, the political predicament of higher ed might look very different! As it happens, I was on the job market when DEI statements reigned, and never actually had any trouble writing them because it was pretty easy to craft a few paragraphs on the slippery principles of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” I felt good about. Did not receive a callback from any of those departments, however (not that I’m attributing any causality to it).

@jessesmithsoc With the conservative case, we are reaching the same conclusion: diversity is good and sometimes we need institutional remedies to make space for ideas that are not mainstream and people we exclude arbitraryly.

@jessesmithsoc Beyond that social aspect, the intellectual aspect is equally valuable. Just like exclusion of conservatives today is intellectually costly, exclusion of 'others' also siloed America academia.

Dayının da dediği gibi “Ortadoğunun kralıyız ...” 😘

I have a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago and my main work task these days is removing em-dashes from Claude output so it's not overly obvious.

Collective problems require collective solutions! In our paper, led by @joseju74, we analyze a decade of science diplomacy efforts and pubs to show how deliberate international coordination turned a complex challenge into a global scientific movement. cambridge.org/core/journals/…

The mirror essentialization also happens. The “primitive” people also see the “civilized” people, debauch and degenerate. Reacting to top-bottom imposition of culturally foreign norms, they react and cling more to the existing norms, ossify them! Armchairism doesn't help!

The Western (aka. universal) norms take time to diffuse. The host communities also have the right to reject some of them. This armchair “mission civilisatrice” does more harm than good. It spreads the “brutish” stereotypes, misrecognizing the variations and possibilities.

Seems like the whole career of this lady is exposing how "primitive", "barbarians" live. Like a colonial anthropologist, digging through pages (not often visiting the site) and coming up with schemes to “civilize” the hell out of brutes. Pathetic, judgmental, civilizationalism!

Using PISA as an example, we demonstrate fields grow after scientization events strengthen their conceptual core while also generating new, more distal areas of inquiry. Major scientific events matter because they don't just “broaden” fields, but also increase their “depth”.

In our latest paper, we question the linear assumption of ever-expanding science. We argue science grows through an interaction between deepening (developing richer understanding within existing ideas) and broadening (exploring new ideas and new areas). nature.com/articles/s4159…

Read this opinion piece written by a statistician that went through T&S peer review at lightening speed with no argument except the summary of major works in social science. Makes me wish getting opinions published as peer reviewed article were this Easy as a grad student!

@Liikennepsykol1 @PsychRabble @ashleytrubin What I find funny is their whole speil is the left has occupied some journals, and they are publishing stuff with questionable data, shoddy methods, and dubious claims. And then, they do exactly the same in the name of “rigorous science”. One ideology against another. Absurd.

@Liikennepsykol1 @PsychRabble @ashleytrubin I think that comes at a huge reputation cost. T&S is a dead journal among sociologists, not due to ideological differences, but because one after another they published methodologically shoddy pieces with sweeping conclusions that simply erased their credibility.

Let's understand how abysmal the data and methods are, and how peer review is being butchered at Theory and Society for ideological hit-pieces. 80%+ of OpenAlex pubs have no abstract (copyright). E.g., only 5.6% of ASR entries havd abstracts.