Autism is a disability, stop acting like a buffoon because I know you aren't one.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Autism is a disability, stop acting like a buffoon because I know you aren't one.
Sorry, forgot she had autism, my bad.
The whole applause being triggering thing had nothing to do with autism when it first started back in 2015. Was basically just about loud noises making NUS feminists anxious.
Kinda seems like they realised it made them look pathetic and are now putting autism up as the major driver. Which rings hollow because I bet if you canvassed autistic student opinions on the matter they'd not want a ban on applause, and would mirror the opinions of the autistic girl in the BBC interview.
Kinda seems like they realised it made them look pathetic and are now putting autism up as the major driver. Which rings hollow because I bet if you canvassed autistic student opinions on the matter they'd not want a ban on applause, and would mirror the opinions of the autistic girl in the BBC interview.
Who is they?
I posted a link to the 2015 incident on page 1 of this thread. All they said was "triggering anxiety" Definitely possible the people feeling anxious were on the autistic spectrum.
I blame Pogue for 95% of the heated discussions on the caf.
Just seems to me that student politicking and students with autism would make a Venn diagram with very little overlap. Autistic students just have too much sense to get into that nonsense.
Especially if we're talking about an NUS womens conference, when autism has an 80/20 male/female split.
autism is a spectrum disability that makes people unable to socialise, it is not the narrow disability that a minority of computer engineers have but that is disproportionately represented in media
even assuming that the underreporting of autism in females barely makes a dent in the the ratio 20% of women having it isn't statistically insignificant
Holy shit.
It's a wank 'study' and the speed by which it's been gleefully picked up by some is, well, perhaps more indicative of a problem than what the authors found. The authors, and especially the right wing twitter bods who are gleefully sharing it don't seem to understand how peer review works, but yes, congratulations, wank research done in bad faith can get published. I suspect that's true for all and every field, but we don't know, because they didn't have a control, because it's shitty research done (oh irony of ironies) to prove a political point.
But hey, maybe the social experiment here is the hypocrisy of attempts to 'own the libs' by doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing?
Wasn't their aim to show the amount of shite that get published? Not like they can write good research and prove the point by that if so.
No their aim was a takedown of sub disciplines they don't like using pseudo-academic methods. At least, I kinda hope it was because, if this research is genuinely indicative of how these people conduct research – or think research should be conducted – then well, feck me, it says a lot about them.
I've done a brief check on the authors, none of whom seem to have any publication history or university affiliation, although Helen Pluckrose's academia.edu page is accessible and she publishes in a related field to mine. If the papers listed there weren't crafted for the study then I suspect she just is not a very good researcher.
If you wanted to demonstrate that a load of shite gets published (a problem that is probably genuine in every single academic discipline, especially in the niche journals that they got published in despite their bogus claims that they were all 'leading'), then there are ways to do it that don't make your findings absolutely meaningless.
Again, all this shows to me, really, is that these three don't understand what peer review is.
That definitely seems to be their intention. Specifically that a load of shite gets published, providing it fits in with a prevailing orthodoxy. But yeah, they really missed a trick by not providing any controls. Seems obvious that they should have also tried to get an identical number of misogynist, uber-conservative articles published at the same time. Otherwise they're using bad science to expose bad science.
the authors are calling it an expose of left wing academics not an expose of publishing standards
it's shit by accident not on purpose
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper
for interest here is a similar story about a much bigger experiment by John Bohannon who blames predatory journals for bad research being published instead of blaming minor academic studies he's not big on
for interest here is a similar story about a much bigger experiment by John Bohannon who blames predatory journals for bad research being published instead of blaming minor academic studies he's not big on
They’re calling it an expose of left wing academics because they’re getting a load of left-leaning drivel published (peer reviewed by academics)
NSFW but funny and very accurate … apologies if it's already posted somewhere else guys!
Problem with fields of study in general is that there's too many of em imho. People do research into topic so irrelevant it's beyond me anyone is even paying em for it.
So this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
Meanwhile excellent scientists engaged in genuine medical research are having to spend 50% of their time trying to get funding for their projects. It's an unfair world.
Using the word 'research' in association with any of those mickey mouse fields is a pretty grievous insult to scientists.
The amount wasted on salaries of identity studies/critical theory profs in America alone is mind boggling. Put all of that money on something with actual value to mankind thanks. Like cancer research.
The amount wasted on salaries of identity studies/critical theory profs in America alone is mind boggling. Put all of that money on something with actual value to mankind thanks. Like cancer research.
… and sadly, not the worst fact mentionedSo this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
They should keep Maslow's pyramid in mind when deciding what to give research grants to.
Fix basic human needs and go from there,
Fix basic human needs and go from there,
these are different things, if your aim is to show how stupid left wing academics are you do an academic review of their stupid ideas
if your aim is to prove that journals accept fraudulent research then yeah, no shit, there are already experiments showing the same thing, this isn't a ground breaking expose
Probably a good job you aren't in charge of funding then.
If we had stopped funding of basic research, based on your ill-informed opinions, we would have an iron lung that was solar powered but we would have no polio vaccine.
So this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
I googled the one about the Netflix executive fired for saying an offensive word, in a meeting about offensive words. Also true.
is it actually completely insane? like, google changing their salad emoji on their android devices is completely insane?So this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
despite multiple versions of googles salad emoji still existing as seen above, would it really be completely insane if they only let you use one without eggs?
While I wholeheartedly agree with it being good that I'm not in charge of it, how are you figuring I'd deem a polio vaccine irrelevant?
Studies into stuff I'd say are mostly irrelevant:
Do Woodpeckers Get Headaches?
The answer is no, they don't, because they have small heads and a sturdy beak.
@Silva
These emoji's are not insane in the slightest, the fact that anyone cares is. As if anyone is offended by any sort of salad emoji. Or perhaps my jaded and cynical soul has gone numb to the point that I no longer feel any sort of emotion over emojis.
Last edited:
the yellow and brown parts on the first one don't look like anything i've ever seen in a salad
Now THAT's completely insane you have to admit. Who puts kiwi's in a salad.
This one's an amazing (harhar) actual study too:
1. Spiderman doesn’t exist.
After an extensive analysis, researchers at Cambridge University have concluded that the larger a person is, the more adhesives he would need to stick to a wall, making it virtually impossible for a normal sized human being to have the characteristics of Spiderman. “If a human, for example, wanted to climb up a wall the way a gecko does, we’d need impractically large sticky feet -- and shoes in European size 145 or US size 114,” saidWalter Federle, senior author also from Cambridge’s Department of Zoology. As for Batman, the jury’s still out.
Oh or:
3. Playing Tetris for just three minutes stops your craving for sex, alcohol and food.
I actually take a real good look if it is some type of parody website like the onion these days. Some of the stuff is hardly believable.
Or to get equally bogus papers published in different subfields and across disciplines.
Bad research happens, bad papers get through peer review, and there probably is a trend towards orthodoxy in the peer review process (especially in small subfields where the number of people able to review things are quite small). Most of those problems are already known about, but they're not only problems of this field.
Falsifying data (as they have in places) and writing articles which correctly and coherently analyse your false data to point at peer review as inherently flawed is just a waste of everyones time. Some of their other examples are more worrying, even if they're little more than anecdotal evidence, but we also know that lots of shit gets published in niche journals, and that not all publications are equal.
It's simply a hit piece and nothing more. The sad fact is they wasted a year of their life on it.
And another example of why the study and write up was terrible:
Last edited:
DAM YOU BERNIE BROS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tommy Robinson fan told to 'get out' of class on first day of college
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...235089?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...235089?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook