Standing up for guys like him. www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning...

fucking hell

do actual academics think we need evidence that a statistical probability model is a statistical probability model and not a sentient being who understands meaning?

next research question: is my kettle powered by electricity or a tiny fire spewing dragon who lives in there?

I just read your reply with glee to the people in my house ❤️

Cell reception doesn't even work in the lecture hall where I need it to sign into the console 🫠

He can’t or won’t compose himself around her. He’s grinning and looking away. He’s not taking her seriously as a colleague.

I love basketball but that was the best use of a basketball arena!

That’s awesome-get ‘em!!
As for me, I’m still in it. Behind the scenes. On multiple fronts. 🫠
Truth is, I haven’t put up as good a fight as I could have. It’s just that I thought I wouldn’t have to 🤡🤣. I’ve got high voltage stuff in the pipeline so more fun is yet to come!

I’m so lucky you saw this! I’ll shoot a response to the editor. It’s funny. I’ve never felt like doing that with any other paper that disagrees with mine (and there’s a pile!) but this one, with the blog post and my joke (which I wanted to be taken SERIOUSLY but not literally) is something else.

Thanks

And, finallly, have you ever named a perspective you take with a joke, only to have your name and your jokey blog post cited as the basis for a study in your field’s top specialized journal?

(And if they’re in on the joke with me, then why haven’t they reached out?)

It’s weird here.

Here’s the paper with the so-called VAGGINA Hypothesis onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...

I have only ever rarely recommended rejection over my career. Not even for an aquatic ape paper!

Anyway… am I wrong to think I maybe could have been invited to review?

And do I have to write a reply now????

Their paper also takes some of my ideas to task in ways that either misunderstands them (my fault) or misrepresents them (theirs). I wasn’t asked to peer review it. I would have liked a chance.

Their study omits the vagina in their test of VAGGINA, which is IRONIC considering the between-the-lines motivation was to actually talk about anything OTHER THAN BABIES being inside the pelvis.

claims to have tested the VAGGINA hypothesis—a joke name that I gave a bunch of ideas and only mentioned it as a joke in the acknowledgments and a blog post about the paper: ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-...