5 ms·

When an article on how not be seen as a crank makes you want to post a long comment about your research into Russian bots, you should probably think again.

ScottBurson 9y ago
This is exactly wrong. It's not having an opinion on a controversial topic that makes one a crank, it's whether that opinion is well supported and respectfully expressed. In fact, mike_hearn's first link is to a blog post where he debunks claims of evidence that Russian bots influenced the Brexit vote. (He doesn't offer evidence that that didn't happen; what kind of evidence could exist? But he does argue that the alleged evidence offered by others that there was such influence is unconvincing.)
mike_hearn 9y ago
It's become a cliche, but that kind of low effort insult is exactly how people like Trump win. You can't argue your position so you resort to calling people who challenge you "cranks". The lazy assumptions that so often pervades these debates leads directly into over-enthusiastic trust of pseudo-science. I've been out all evening, and my post is now at +11. But if it was getting downvoted I am 99% certain it's because a lot of people really want to believe in the whole Russia/Trump/Twitter story and can't stand anything that challenges it, even incidentally. It meets their pre-existing biases and grants a feeling of moral and mental superiority: the other tribe might be brainwashed by something as trivial as a retweet, but there's no way I'd be like that. But that's the whole point of this blog post we're discussing: lots of people have very, very strong incentives to believe in pseudo-science dressed up as the real thing. That doesn't just include scientists themselves but also journalists, politicians and so on. The psychological paper that Nick Brown did a takedown of was cited by hundreds of papers and led to lucrative speaking careers. The underlying equations that made it seem like science vs mere opinion weren't connected to anything and boiled down to nonsense (a problem I've seen several times). Yet it took enormous efforts to do anything about it, and in the end the scientists who got caught are unrepentant: one of them didn't even bother to respond and the other agreed that the maths was nonsense but doesn't believe it really matters. The same thing has happened repeatedly in recent years. See the story of Amy Cuddy: her 'power pose' research was thoroughly debunked but she simply refused to accept it, despite her co-authors accepting that the research was wrong. She continues to milk the speaking circuit and has even been cited by the BBC as an example of an "inspiring woman", although her career is arguably built on deception. At this point, if you believe in Russian twitter bots influencing elections, why shouldn't you be the crank? Where is the evidence? All claims I've seen on this topic fall apart under examination. Even the premise is absurd - it relies on the belief that millions of people are so politically ungrounded their vote can be shifted merely by seeing a spammy retweet. That is a very dubious belief. But if you believe you have a reliable study that proves the existence of armies of bots capable of swinging elections, please do show it. I will enjoy examining it. However, it is not sufficient to merely point at high-status individuals and delegate to them, because - as this entire discussion shows - bad "science" is capable of spreading and even becoming a consensus far too fast.
- shaki-dora 9y ago
  The article here is about the mistakes people make when trying to communicate their doubts in published science: how, even when they are right, they can come across as “cranks” and easily dismissed. I have no idea if you’re right, and I’m not about to waste time down that particular rabbit hole. But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank and here are 12 paragraphs and my blog to prove it”. It’s simply off topic in this discussion.
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    > But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank and here are 12 paragraphs and my blog to prove it”. It’s simply off topic in this discussion. I don't think it came across that way to most people. I'm a bit surprised you got that impression from it, and can't see how you'd read it that way. There's nothing in there about "I'm not a crank," for starters, and it didn't seem at all verbose.

ScottBurson 9y ago

This is exactly wrong. It's not having an opinion on a controversial topic that makes one a crank, it's whether that opinion is well supported and respectfully expressed. In fact, mike_hearn's first link is to a blog post where he debunks claims of evidence that Russian bots influenced the Brexit vote. (He doesn't offer evidence that that didn't happen; what kind of evidence could exist? But he does argue that the alleged evidence offered by others that there was such influence is unconvincing.)

mike_hearn 9y ago

It's become a cliche, but that kind of low effort insult is exactly how people like Trump win. You can't argue your position so you resort to calling people who challenge you "cranks". The lazy assumptions that so often pervades these debates leads directly into over-enthusiastic trust of pseudo-science. I've been out all evening, and my post is now at +11. But if it was getting downvoted I am 99% certain it's because a lot of people really want to believe in the whole Russia/Trump/Twitter story and can't stand anything that challenges it, even incidentally. It meets their pre-existing biases and grants a feeling of moral and mental superiority: the other tribe might be brainwashed by something as trivial as a retweet, but there's no way I'd be like that. But that's the whole point of this blog post we're discussing: lots of people have very, very strong incentives to believe in pseudo-science dressed up as the real thing. That doesn't just include scientists themselves but also journalists, politicians and so on. The psychological paper that Nick Brown did a takedown of was cited by hundreds of papers and led to lucrative speaking careers. The underlying equations that made it seem like science vs mere opinion weren't connected to anything and boiled down to nonsense (a problem I've seen several times). Yet it took enormous efforts to do anything about it, and in the end the scientists who got caught are unrepentant: one of them didn't even bother to respond and the other agreed that the maths was nonsense but doesn't believe it really matters. The same thing has happened repeatedly in recent years. See the story of Amy Cuddy: her 'power pose' research was thoroughly debunked but she simply refused to accept it, despite her co-authors accepting that the research was wrong. She continues to milk the speaking circuit and has even been cited by the BBC as an example of an "inspiring woman", although her career is arguably built on deception. At this point, if you believe in Russian twitter bots influencing elections, why shouldn't you be the crank? Where is the evidence? All claims I've seen on this topic fall apart under examination. Even the premise is absurd - it relies on the belief that millions of people are so politically ungrounded their vote can be shifted merely by seeing a spammy retweet. That is a very dubious belief. But if you believe you have a reliable study that proves the existence of armies of bots capable of swinging elections, please do show it. I will enjoy examining it. However, it is not sufficient to merely point at high-status individuals and delegate to them, because - as this entire discussion shows - bad "science" is capable of spreading and even becoming a consensus far too fast.

shaki-dora 9y ago
The article here is about the mistakes people make when trying to communicate their doubts in published science: how, even when they are right, they can come across as “cranks” and easily dismissed. I have no idea if you’re right, and I’m not about to waste time down that particular rabbit hole. But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank and here are 12 paragraphs and my blog to prove it”. It’s simply off topic in this discussion.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  > But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank and here are 12 paragraphs and my blog to prove it”. It’s simply off topic in this discussion. I don't think it came across that way to most people. I'm a bit surprised you got that impression from it, and can't see how you'd read it that way. There's nothing in there about "I'm not a crank," for starters, and it didn't seem at all verbose.