Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://aus.social/users/justanotheramy/statuses/113507282167416056">Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:50 JST</a><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy" title="justanotheramy@aus.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/285746-48-20241006072005.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Just Another Amy" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Just Another Amy</a><div><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy/113507231214790716" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/248666" title="erici@social.sdf.org">Eric Ireland</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://social.sdf.org/@erici">@erici</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/@camwilson">@camwilson</a> <br>The claim that "the broader scientific and policy communities tune in" shifts the focus from evidence to influence, subtly pressuring the audience to take sides.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4002667#notice-7870233">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-11-19T17:22:50+09:00" title="Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:50 JST">about 3 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870233" rel="external" title="Sent from gnusocial.jp via ActivityPub">gnusocial.jp</a></span></span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870233">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3521132">Psychologist Candice Odgers has taken the skeptical side for many years now along with researchers including Amy Orben, Andrew Przybylski, Jeff Hancock, Chris Ferguson, and Aaron Brown), while Jean Twenge and I have been writing as alarm ringers. It has been a normal and productive academic debate. Engagement with each other's arguments is how science makes progress. Even if we never convince each other, the broader scientific and policy communities tune in to the debate, and eventually, they'll move one way or the other.</a></label><br><a href="https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/279/249/469/954/original/41686aac3feda0f1.jpeg" rel="external">https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/279/249/469/954/original/41686aac3feda0f1.jpeg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:50 JSTJust Another Amy
in reply to
- camwilson
- Eric Ireland
@erici @camwilson
The claim that "the broader scientific and policy communities tune in" shifts the focus from evidence to influence, subtly pressuring the audience to take sides.
In conversationabout 3 months ago from gnusocial.jppermalink
Attachments
1. Psychologist Candice Odgers has taken the skeptical side for many years now along with researchers including Amy Orben, Andrew Przybylski, Jeff Hancock, Chris Ferguson, and Aaron Brown), while Jean Twenge and I have been writing as alarm ringers. It has been a normal and productive academic debate. Engagement with each other's arguments is how science makes progress. Even if we never convince each other, the broader scientific and policy communities tune in to the debate, and eventually, they'll move one way or the other.
  https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/279/249/469/954/original/41686aac3feda0f1.jpeg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice