@tagerai.bsky.social
And of course let’s not even start on how publushing/citing in top econ journals works lol. Most psychs don’t even believe me
November 11, 2025 at 1:03 AM
And of course let’s not even start on how publushing/citing in top econ journals works lol. Most psychs don’t even believe me
I was much more open to responding to ecr’s than to famous profs but I saw it as leveling and broadening my author pool. Thats not how it has to work, it can def be corrupt, I just wouldn’t jump there. I continue to think we can’t metascience our way out of trusting each other on some level.
November 11, 2025 at 12:46 AM
I was much more open to responding to ecr’s than to famous profs but I saw it as leveling and broadening my author pool. Thats not how it has to work, it can def be corrupt, I just wouldn’t jump there. I continue to think we can’t metascience our way out of trusting each other on some level.
I agree with this, I’m just uncomfortable with the ‘super shady’ moniker. We’re talking about structural inequities of elite networks that give different access to information. That’s a bit different than any sort of intentional quid pro quo I think, but perhaps I’m biased
November 11, 2025 at 12:36 AM
I agree with this, I’m just uncomfortable with the ‘super shady’ moniker. We’re talking about structural inequities of elite networks that give different access to information. That’s a bit different than any sort of intentional quid pro quo I think, but perhaps I’m biased
I use this ex. B/c it’s a nice contrast to the kind of ‘relationship building’ that I did think was shady and we actively avoided. Famous profs wanting to take me to dinner, pay for me to fly out to visit their lab etc. some of this is obvious, some is more about context
November 11, 2025 at 12:32 AM
I use this ex. B/c it’s a nice contrast to the kind of ‘relationship building’ that I did think was shady and we actively avoided. Famous profs wanting to take me to dinner, pay for me to fly out to visit their lab etc. some of this is obvious, some is more about context
I think we got coffee once when I was editor at science, prob talked about the journal, my vision for it, what papers work, what kind of papers you’d like to see etc. that builds a relationship, gives you an advantage maybe, reflects structural inequities, but i‘d hesitate to call it shady
November 11, 2025 at 12:30 AM
I think we got coffee once when I was editor at science, prob talked about the journal, my vision for it, what papers work, what kind of papers you’d like to see etc. that builds a relationship, gives you an advantage maybe, reflects structural inequities, but i‘d hesitate to call it shady
There’s room for reasonable disagreement/interpretation here. Is a prospective student who contacts you to see if it’s a good fit acting shady? I use this ex. b/c many profs explicitly discourage this for fairness BUT I doubt they would label the practice or the person who does it as shady
November 11, 2025 at 12:26 AM
There’s room for reasonable disagreement/interpretation here. Is a prospective student who contacts you to see if it’s a good fit acting shady? I use this ex. b/c many profs explicitly discourage this for fairness BUT I doubt they would label the practice or the person who does it as shady
As a person who never wins, it seems mostly normal/not shady. The officer is the person closest to the process, they know what a winning structure looks like, what topics are preferred, what beats to hit, how to communicate the idea, etc. it’s emailing to chat, not buying them an all-expense trip
November 11, 2025 at 12:24 AM
As a person who never wins, it seems mostly normal/not shady. The officer is the person closest to the process, they know what a winning structure looks like, what topics are preferred, what beats to hit, how to communicate the idea, etc. it’s emailing to chat, not buying them an all-expense trip
I think of it more like “I believe in universal human rights” and so if someone tells/shows me that they will fight for some minorities but not others, I’m not voting for them. That’s not purity politics or having a pet issue, its just being internally coherent and not trusting people who aren’t
November 10, 2025 at 11:34 PM
I think of it more like “I believe in universal human rights” and so if someone tells/shows me that they will fight for some minorities but not others, I’m not voting for them. That’s not purity politics or having a pet issue, its just being internally coherent and not trusting people who aren’t
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a retiring Democrat from New Hampshire, said Republicans made clear repeatedly over recent months that “this was the only deal on the table.”
What do they think politics even is?
What do they think politics even is?
November 10, 2025 at 3:26 PM