61–70 of 319 posts
And your reputation follows you. If it’s a big-name lab who has an amazing track record, you’re going to review the paper in the context of their entire body of work.
This reminds me of a bias I saw on Quora, where some popular contributor gets tons of upvotes by fans regardless of whether their answer is any good or not (often you have to dig deep into the comments to find out that it's not a good answer). (I should qualify that I don't know if it's still that way; I started using it when it was first launched and then quit 6-7 years ago once it started turning into a fanboi and…
It's probably inherent to any site that allows you to follow individuals. For Twitter that's not much of a problem because most people know better than to rely on Twitter for life advice or product reviews. Letterboxd, on the other hand, manifests exactly the problem you're talking about, and the whole point of the site is to assign purported ratings to film and TV shows. Reddit and IMDb are mostly immune. Which is n…
Great feedback, she thought, because She was xxxxx.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a friend who is somewhat famous in his little research niche. Even when submitting papers for blind review he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from. The peer group is indeed small and rivalries happen quickly. Sometimes you know what other labs are doing very similar research and it's a race to publish first…
> "he will do things like deliberately spell some words British and others American to make it harder for peers to figure out who the paper is from." This is a good initiative, but a catch is that if he's the only person deliberately spelling some words British and others American, the spelling choice becomes a unique identifier. Though, it could work as long as no one within the group knows who is using the varied s…
Academia was bought and paid for long ago and the money was used to build an incredibly broken and overly political bureaucratic engine of scholarly and scientific work that doesn't get anywhere near as much peer-review scrutiny as it should and commands far more respect in politics and legal proceedings than we should allow.
Universities and experts are the best we can do sometimes so we have to rely on it, but it doesn't mean it's truth or absolute and people like to use it as if it is to sell ideas like global warming instead of educating people on climate change.
This reminds me of a bias I saw on Quora, where some popular contributor gets tons of upvotes by fans regardless of whether their answer is any good or not (often you have to dig deep into the comments to find out that it's not a good answer). (I should qualify that I don't know if it's still that way; I started using it when it was first launched and then quit 6-7 years ago once it started turning into a fanboi and…
"A Nobel prizewinner is six times more likely than someone less well known to get a thumbs-up for acceptance, finds study." Lifehack discovered: legally change your name to that of a Nobel prizewinner if pursuing academia.
Old news from 2016 Jobseekers with Anglo-Saxon, easy to pronounce and common names are the most likely to get to the interview stage compared to candidates with unfamiliar names, according to research by the Australian National University published in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unusual-nam...
"A Nobel prizewinner is six times more likely than someone less well known to get a thumbs-up for acceptance, finds study." Lifehack discovered: legally change your name to that of a Nobel prizewinner if pursuing academia.
Hey, it's me, Niels Bohr.
This reminds me of a bias I saw on Quora, where some popular contributor gets tons of upvotes by fans regardless of whether their answer is any good or not (often you have to dig deep into the comments to find out that it's not a good answer). (I should qualify that I don't know if it's still that way; I started using it when it was first launched and then quit 6-7 years ago once it started turning into a fanboi and…
Each group trended towards catapulting a single band / musician, but it always just depended on which one in the group got the momentum first.
I wish I could find the study again but it's hard to google for.
Pretty eye opening.