5 ms·

Not to say author is wrong but I don’t get the point of writing a blog that reads like a paper with some political commentary at the end. If you think the meta

Not to say author is wrong but I don’t get the point of writing a blog that reads like a paper with some political commentary at the end. If you think the meta analysis was flawed then publish a paper showing why and skip the internet rant about politics. If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time reading your findings about something I personally have no expertise in? It’s not like I can or want to fact check the author on their meta meta analysis

mbauman 4y ago
Check their other blog post.
- neilk 4y ago
  Without any reasonable way to check the author’s credentials or the soundness of their analysis, I did go looking into who they are. The pseudonym “Cremieux Receuil” and the avatar refer to Adolph Crémieux[1], a French lawyer and politician remembered for advancing the status of Jews in France. “Receuil” is just French for “collection”, and this person published a work by that name. Wikipedia notes that Crémieux’s decree did not extend French citizenship to Arabs. This may be significant when combined with what else we know about the Substack author. The Substack has one other post, another long and very dense posting which, if I understand correctly, attempts to show errors in others’ historical analyses of the economic effects of slavery on subsequent generations. The author argues it is not significant, and points to racial mixing with Europeans as a better explanation for disparate outcomes among the descendants of slaves. I admit I do not understand all the tropes this author is deploying, which seem common among online reactionaries. I speculate that I, the normie, am supposed to be dazzled by their erudition, triggered by the race science, and bewildered by their allusions to obscure figures. Perhaps, by attempting to decode them, I am giving the author what they want. But honestly, all I feel is tired. This person’s priorities are not my priorities. Perhaps it is true that our biggest problem today is excess zeal in fighting climate change or mitigating the effects of colonial slavery. Perhaps we are on the road to serfdom by trying to do anything about it. As a product of miscegenation myself, I look forward to lenient treatment from my future masters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sf...
reedjosh 4y ago
> If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time Where would the author get published and receive peer review? The gate keeping, bias, and influence peddling in today's journals make what you're saying nearly impossible.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- helen___keller 4y ago
  Let me be more clear: I don’t understand the goal of the OP because if you have the training and patience to read this article you probably would rather see it in a peer reviewed article; and if you don’t, then the article is meaningless other than the political rant at the end. I don’t know who the intended audience is, but it’s definitely not me.
  - jack_pp 4y ago
    The goal is to justify the political rant. I'm not going to fast check the meat of the article either but if I really had a dog in the fight then I could learn and check. It also allows other people with the appropriate expertise to check and offer a rebuttal if they find flaws
  - bryan0 4y ago
    I personally love this type of blog post, and I think it’s good for articles on complicated topics to show their analysis. Have you read Scott Alexander? He does a similar style but with more humor to keep it entertaining.
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    This kind of blog posting seems like a much more integrous approach to disseminating information to me. Any person can add further information/opinions and back up their claims with links to sources or further reading. This is in direct opposition to most peer reviewed articles I see that don't allow any commentary, which seem to pretend that the documents are some sort of uncontestable hard truth.
spacephysics 4y ago
Yeah we’ve seen even recently that the gatekeeping for even getting an attempt at peer review hampers many papers. I understand the rationale though. I had submitted a paper with some friends to an epub, and asked some people in the academic space what they thought of it. I was an undergraduate, other members were in their grad courses. We had brown men on twitter call us names and berate us because we asked what they thought. Yeah the formatting wasn’t perfect, but the math behind it was sound
slibhb 4y ago
You raise a good question: if you're unwilling or unable to check the author's work, how should you evaluate articles like this? I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. Wrong answers would be "I disagree with the political commentary so the article wrong" or "I agree with the political commentary so the article is right". I think you're falling into the former category.
- helen___keller 4y ago
  > I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. I suppose that’s fair. Although this is in some ways already the default position.

mbauman 4y ago

Check their other blog post.

neilk 4y ago
Without any reasonable way to check the author’s credentials or the soundness of their analysis, I did go looking into who they are. The pseudonym “Cremieux Receuil” and the avatar refer to Adolph Crémieux[1], a French lawyer and politician remembered for advancing the status of Jews in France. “Receuil” is just French for “collection”, and this person published a work by that name. Wikipedia notes that Crémieux’s decree did not extend French citizenship to Arabs. This may be significant when combined with what else we know about the Substack author. The Substack has one other post, another long and very dense posting which, if I understand correctly, attempts to show errors in others’ historical analyses of the economic effects of slavery on subsequent generations. The author argues it is not significant, and points to racial mixing with Europeans as a better explanation for disparate outcomes among the descendants of slaves. I admit I do not understand all the tropes this author is deploying, which seem common among online reactionaries. I speculate that I, the normie, am supposed to be dazzled by their erudition, triggered by the race science, and bewildered by their allusions to obscure figures. Perhaps, by attempting to decode them, I am giving the author what they want. But honestly, all I feel is tired. This person’s priorities are not my priorities. Perhaps it is true that our biggest problem today is excess zeal in fighting climate change or mitigating the effects of colonial slavery. Perhaps we are on the road to serfdom by trying to do anything about it. As a product of miscegenation myself, I look forward to lenient treatment from my future masters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sf...

reedjosh 4y ago

> If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time Where would the author get published and receive peer review? The gate keeping, bias, and influence peddling in today's journals make what you're saying nearly impossible.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
helen___keller 4y ago
Let me be more clear: I don’t understand the goal of the OP because if you have the training and patience to read this article you probably would rather see it in a peer reviewed article; and if you don’t, then the article is meaningless other than the political rant at the end. I don’t know who the intended audience is, but it’s definitely not me.
- jack_pp 4y ago
  The goal is to justify the political rant. I'm not going to fast check the meat of the article either but if I really had a dog in the fight then I could learn and check. It also allows other people with the appropriate expertise to check and offer a rebuttal if they find flaws
- bryan0 4y ago
  I personally love this type of blog post, and I think it’s good for articles on complicated topics to show their analysis. Have you read Scott Alexander? He does a similar style but with more humor to keep it entertaining.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  This kind of blog posting seems like a much more integrous approach to disseminating information to me. Any person can add further information/opinions and back up their claims with links to sources or further reading. This is in direct opposition to most peer reviewed articles I see that don't allow any commentary, which seem to pretend that the documents are some sort of uncontestable hard truth.

spacephysics 4y ago

Yeah we’ve seen even recently that the gatekeeping for even getting an attempt at peer review hampers many papers. I understand the rationale though. I had submitted a paper with some friends to an epub, and asked some people in the academic space what they thought of it. I was an undergraduate, other members were in their grad courses. We had brown men on twitter call us names and berate us because we asked what they thought. Yeah the formatting wasn’t perfect, but the math behind it was sound

slibhb 4y ago

You raise a good question: if you're unwilling or unable to check the author's work, how should you evaluate articles like this? I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. Wrong answers would be "I disagree with the political commentary so the article wrong" or "I agree with the political commentary so the article is right". I think you're falling into the former category.

helen___keller 4y ago
> I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. I suppose that’s fair. Although this is in some ways already the default position.