Evan "Skwid" Langlinais linked to an article covering this, so I looked it up.
Evan "Skwid" Langlinais linked to an article covering this, so I looked it up. I skimmed it, and feel like I want the raw data and a more detailed look at the methodology. Because even skimming it and the figures, especially the first figure, and then reading how they are interpreting this, concerns me a lot.
Firstly, although I am a critic of 'science' reporting, I don't actually think everyone is a complete idiot. However, many sources are reporting this as 'scientists aren't warm enough'. My flippant response to this is, ok, so there should be spherical kittens. My less flippant response is why are they accepting the authors' conclusions and comments at face value? How did they get there? Because, on a cursory read, I can't see it.
Secondly, a superficial glance makes me wonder a great deal about the authors' biases. Theoretically, they are just reporting what they find. But they aren't; they're interpreting it. And I need to dig into the supplemental material to see if they provide anything useful there, but they aren't giving a well-reasoned and followable path from data to conclusions.
Lastly, in the interest of full disclosure, the lead and senior author appears to be the same person who was associated with the Facebook study on manipulating people without their knowledge (fuzzy descriptions of consent notwithstanding). This immediately raises my concern about the insight and judgment brought to bear in this study. So that's my bias.
Until I read further and change my mind, I find the article title and the coverage of it highly misleading. For now, I neither trust nor respect this article.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
Firstly, although I am a critic of 'science' reporting, I don't actually think everyone is a complete idiot. However, many sources are reporting this as 'scientists aren't warm enough'. My flippant response to this is, ok, so there should be spherical kittens. My less flippant response is why are they accepting the authors' conclusions and comments at face value? How did they get there? Because, on a cursory read, I can't see it.
Secondly, a superficial glance makes me wonder a great deal about the authors' biases. Theoretically, they are just reporting what they find. But they aren't; they're interpreting it. And I need to dig into the supplemental material to see if they provide anything useful there, but they aren't giving a well-reasoned and followable path from data to conclusions.
Lastly, in the interest of full disclosure, the lead and senior author appears to be the same person who was associated with the Facebook study on manipulating people without their knowledge (fuzzy descriptions of consent notwithstanding). This immediately raises my concern about the insight and judgment brought to bear in this study. So that's my bias.
Until I read further and change my mind, I find the article title and the coverage of it highly misleading. For now, I neither trust nor respect this article.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
Comments
Post a Comment