I've been here since 2012, and what she has documented was obvious to me. Good for her to have the courage to actually show that and to challenge everyone here and elsewhere in Economics.
The truth is the truth, and we all here know it.
Wu is right
-
I've been here since 2012, and what she has documented was obvious to me. Good for her to have the courage to actually show that and to challenge everyone here and elsewhere in Economics.
The truth is the truth, and we all here know it.What truth, some employed enraged bros who post here 24/7 the same stuff over and over?
-
"Right" doesn't apply to Wu's work in this context. It was already obvious to anyone without a severe mental handicap that sexism exists in many places, and academic economics is no exception. Wu's work wasn't necessary to reveal that point.
Wu was wrong, on technical grounds, in stating that her conclusions followed from the data and her analysis. of it
-
Yeah she really showed the Economics profession... by stating the obvious fact that EJMR has a ton of racist/sexist posts and proceeding to provide no good empirical analysis showing that said obvious fact is true.
That's a bigger failure than most undergrad theses, where the stated claim is outrageously and obviously false. At least other undergrads failed to provide empirical evidence for false claims, rather than true ones...
-
Of course she is right. I don't have to data mine Hitler's speechs to prove he was a racist. Obviously, the analogy with Hitler's is extreme but I've been on this site for years and it's pretty clear What this site is. Which is the only reason this project was done in the first place, they knew what they would find.
-
It's not about how rigorous her work is. It's not about how good her identification is, and it's not about stating the obvious.
It's the fact that she, using basic tools, has managed to expose a troubling issue (in my view) and brought it to the forefront, including having it in a nationally read newspaper. How many of us can get to that point after 20 years of PhD, let alone being an undergrad?
Many people can do a better work, but this was a good start.
-
It's not about how rigorous her work is. It's not about how good her identification is, and it's not about stating the obvious.
It's the fact that she, using basic tools, has managed to expose a troubling issue (in my view) and brought it to the forefront, including having it in a nationally read newspaper. How many of us can get to that point after 20 years of PhD, let alone being an undergrad?
Many people can do a better work, but this was a good start.Isn't more efficient of buy ad space on TV and show some of the worse posts as examples?
Sounds just like bad science and an excuse to use fancy techniques to get nowhere fast.
-
It's not about how rigorous her work is. It's not about how good her identification is, and it's not about stating the obvious.
It's the fact that she, using basic tools, has managed to expose a troubling issue (in my view) and brought it to the forefront, including having it in a nationally read newspaper. How many of us can get to that point after 20 years of PhD, let alone being an undergrad?
Many people can do a better work, but this was a good start.She didn't "expose" anything. Anyone with a greater than pea-sized brain can see that this place is a cesspool (as is any anonymous online forum). She showed something obvious, interpreted it incorrectly (her evidence neither shows that EJMR is mostly sexists / etc. because of no IP data so her analysis is not robust to megatrolls, nor does it show anything about the economics profession, as there is absolutely no discussion of how representative EJMR is of the profession), and presented a misleading analysis and conclusion. Oh, what a scholar.
-
How are people so dense. Of course this place is, on average, a cesspool of racism, misogyny, etc. However, does anyone really think this is a representative sample that can be used to make inferences about the broader population of economists. The paper even states such, but EVERYONE is glossing over that fact. And the fact that well-known economists are selling this as "path breaking" demonstrates how dishonest those at the "top" of our profession are. The correct conclusion is, "EJMR is on average a cesspool. However, the results with respect to the broader profession of economics given the non-random selection of users who frequent EJMR. Basically, results that mean nothing." But let me be clear, that in no way is an attempt to excuse the dirtbags that do in fact post horrible trash in this forum.
Btw, this is my first post ever on this site. I'm just super annoyed since I bust my a** trying to do real research only to have those that claim this is "path breaking" to reject my papers for far less egregious reasons relative to those they selectively choose to ignore in this undergraduate level paper.
/end rant
-
How are people so dense. Of course this place is, on average, a cesspool of racism, misogyny, etc.
Only if you take the context out of the posts can you make that claim. Most of the stuff being exposed as racism or misogyny, on average, are joke posts from trolls.
-
I hope there will be a John Oliver episode on the calamity that EJMR has become.
It is possible to have an anonymous board only if it moderated seriously. Kirk and whoever else has admin rights have taken such a laissez-faire approach, that this board has only attracted the worst posts and trolls, to the detriment of posts that could be legitimately useful to the profession.
Ejmr likes to pat itself on the back by rehashing the few scandals it has helped uncover. But these successes are rare. 95% trolling, redpilling, racism, and sexism, is nit the necessary price for anonymous free speech. Proper moderation is.
-
I hope there will be a John Oliver episode on the calamity that EJMR has become.
It is possible to have an anonymous board only if it moderated seriously. Kirk and whoever else has admin rights have taken such a laissez-faire approach, that this board has only attracted the worst posts and trolls, to the detriment of posts that could be legitimately useful to the profession.
Ejmr likes to pat itself on the back by rehashing the few scandals it has helped uncover. But these successes are rare. 95% trolling, redpilling, racism, and sexism, is nit the necessary price for anonymous free speech. Proper moderation is.Just lol at John Oliver