> In short, Fiske doesn’t like when people use social media to publish negative comments on published research.
This doesn't at all match Fiske's article. As people on HN know very well, there's a difference between, on one hand, serious, constructive criticism; and on the other, the trolling, abuse, and just endless barrage of nonsense that buries any signal in noise, all of which is common online. It's clear Fiske is talking about the latter; the following is very recognizable:
... uncurated, unfiltered trash-talk, In the most extreme examples, online vigilantes are attacking individuals. Self-appointed data police are volunteering critiques of such personal ferocity and relentless frequency that they resemble a denial-of-service attack ...
It's not discussion, it's abuse, and we know well that the latter have tried to hide behind the former as a justification. And we also are very familiar now with the consequences:
Only what's crashing are people. The unmoderated attacks create collateral damage to targets' careers and well-being, with no accountability for the bullies. Our colleagues at all career stages are leaving the field because of sheer adversarial viciousness.
----
Then our author fabricates and attributes ideas to Fiske that she never mentions or even alludes to:
> She’s implicitly following what I’ve sometimes called the research incumbency rule: that, once an article is published in some approved venue, it should be taken as truth.
The word 'implicitly' is not a license to fabricate the rest of the sentence. And he goes on to criticize the whole field, despite saying at the beginning,
> it’s pretty much all about internal goings-on within the field of psychology (careers, tenure, smear tactics, people trying to protect their labs, public-speaking sponsors, career-stage vulnerability), and I don’t know anything about this, as I’m an outsider to psychology and I’ve seen very little of this sort of thing ...
I don't know anything about this; enough said. Also, his characterization of her article makes me wonder if he read it; her article is about trolling and abuse, and the things he mentions are only second-order effects.
The above behaviors are all familiar, and also telling is another habit we'll recognize:
> I was inclined to just keep my response short and sweet, but then it seemed worth the trouble to give some context.
If she's complaining about trolling and abuse, she should probably say so, and not use terms like "methodological terrorism". That is a) a rather unprofessional accusation and b) a term that brings to mind scientific criticism , not abuse.
She also says, "We agree to abide by scientific standards, ethical norms, and mutual respect" while throwing around terms like "terrorism", "destructo-critics", "vigilantes", "data police".
This doesn't at all match Fiske's article. As people on HN know very well, there's a difference between, on one hand, serious, constructive criticism; and on the other, the trolling, abuse, and just endless barrage of nonsense that buries any signal in noise, all of which is common online. It's clear Fiske is talking about the latter; the following is very recognizable:
... uncurated, unfiltered trash-talk, In the most extreme examples, online vigilantes are attacking individuals. Self-appointed data police are volunteering critiques of such personal ferocity and relentless frequency that they resemble a denial-of-service attack ...
It's not discussion, it's abuse, and we know well that the latter have tried to hide behind the former as a justification. And we also are very familiar now with the consequences:
Only what's crashing are people. The unmoderated attacks create collateral damage to targets' careers and well-being, with no accountability for the bullies. Our colleagues at all career stages are leaving the field because of sheer adversarial viciousness.
----
Then our author fabricates and attributes ideas to Fiske that she never mentions or even alludes to:
> She’s implicitly following what I’ve sometimes called the research incumbency rule: that, once an article is published in some approved venue, it should be taken as truth.
The word 'implicitly' is not a license to fabricate the rest of the sentence. And he goes on to criticize the whole field, despite saying at the beginning,
> it’s pretty much all about internal goings-on within the field of psychology (careers, tenure, smear tactics, people trying to protect their labs, public-speaking sponsors, career-stage vulnerability), and I don’t know anything about this, as I’m an outsider to psychology and I’ve seen very little of this sort of thing ...
I don't know anything about this; enough said. Also, his characterization of her article makes me wonder if he read it; her article is about trolling and abuse, and the things he mentions are only second-order effects.
The above behaviors are all familiar, and also telling is another habit we'll recognize:
> I was inclined to just keep my response short and sweet, but then it seemed worth the trouble to give some context.
Maybe we found one of the trolls.