Cat Hicksoh my fking god. I am TRYING to do research for my book right now but I am getting DISTRACTED by the fact that I followed a citation from a paper into another paper and learned that they're interpreting EEG and eyetracking as a way to sort people into "in the flow" or "not in the flow" I AM GOING TO EFFING LOSE IT
I love that this was published in the same overall goddamn umbrella organization that sent me reviewers that said my work had "too much psychology" cited in it I AM. GOING. TO. LOSE. IT.
eyeblinks as a measure of frustration? I'm going to throw my entire laptop into the ocean
this is UNCRITICALLY cited in a BIG paper with NO reference to it being a biometrics study AT ALL
I mean. Can we measure things with EEG and with eyetracking, yes we can. Can we detect different kinds of waves yes we can. Do blinks correlate with something, I don't know, probably. This is all just so effing strange.
how is engineering the most critical field with the LEAST critical research I've ever seen. Do you guys just think if something is published in Fuck All Journal, 2024, that makes it good?
Irenes (many)@grimalkina honestly it's almost certainly because research is either funded by corporations for Taylorist reasons and for that purpose it doesn't matter whether it's true since it's just propaganda, or by academics for sincere reasons but for that purpose it doesn't matter at all because management will ignore it?
@ireneista I see the larger points and agree re: the difficulty of getting authentic work heard and issues in science reform,
but still there IS good science on all of this. There is amazing science on human behavior, there's good science on how we use EEGs, there's good science on all of this! There are people spending their whole careers studying this with sincerity and bravery. Eng just won't let it in, specifically!
@grimalkina yeah :/ sorry. we have seen people advocate for reforms of business processes based on science, and we have seen the absolute brick wall response from management, who close ranks around it apparently without even considering the substance. we wish that it were otherwise.
@ireneista I totally understand/hear that, it's really painful, I've experienced that so often as well
@grimalkina extremely. it is not how we're taught the world works, as scientists.
@grimalkina (in the loose sense of people committed to the practice of science with intellectual honesty and for the benefit of humanity)
@grimalkina our former employer may be worse than most, but google in particular seemed to view its own participation in peer-reviewed science as more of a tool for reinforcing the company's narratives in a variety of domains, including business practices, marketing, and public policy. so, like, any time anyone would come to the company saying hey this research says XYZ, the company would have its own publications that say not-XYZ.
@ireneista independent science is vital to our society. I think that is why it's so painful for me (I would've stayed in academia if I could, and fought mightily to, and experienced significant violence which is one reason I had to leave it) to see that even in areas of work that are from academia and I do think in some cases done by people who are fairly independent, our pervasive barriers to who gets in and gets to produce knowledge still impact work so much
@grimalkina yeah, absolutely