Someone tell that man that brown isn't one of the six thinking hats, although it can be what you get when mixing the red, green and blue ones too often.
and I have somewhat mixed feelings about it
That's the bit I want to hear about. The rest I believe, from what you and others have said. Is it for better, or worse? Because large slices of self-belief and ego could possibly NOT stand in the way of most of the human population engaging in the sciences, maybe?
However he said he was “fundamentally not” in contact with Slater.
Love it. "Fundamentally" as the new tool of evasion. Something's not true unless it's fundamentally true, rather than superficially technically true. I think that if that's not very probably bullshit, then it's very actually bullshit.
It’s like every scooby doo episode I ever watched. How many masks will we have to pull off before the the slightly left of centre blogger is revaled to be Rush Limbugh?
Indeed. It's a trail so obvious, you could put a tail on it and call it an elephant.
Does it matter if he is Foreman or Forman?
Well, if it's Foreman, then he could be the son of Bill and Diane Foreman, the ice-cream Queen, a name with a quite unfortunate connection back to the National Party.
ETA: What I mean is, they do have a son called Joshua. But I don't know if they're same person - he'd be only about 23 and might have nothing to do with it. Or maybe he is inspired by Slater. I can see that happening to a rich teenage boy.
I suspect this time in three year’s time, Andrew Little will be the recipient of the same fickle treatment.
That will depend entirely on how successful he is between now and then. At this point, I wouldn't want to pick it. But I can pick this: I personally like what he says a LOT more than anything Cunliffe or Shearer ever said.
But how often are these people publishing with PhD students or earlier career researchers and feel like they can’t risk it?
Yes, they've already risked 10 years of their lives by that point. But I've often thought that they don't see it that way at all, and that it seemed like the path of least resistance to many a brilliant but somewhat undirected mind, which could go a long way to explaining the strangely selective risk aversion.
More interesting reading
There goes my afternoon! Thanks btw, for the reading and for the thread.
I and almost all my colleagues have rather large egos in some sense, or we wouldn’t be doing research at all.
I'll trust you on whether that is actually so, but have to ask, do you think it's a good thing that it is so? That cuts out a lot of people who might be valuable but just don't happen to be ego driven.
How did he suddenly come across this ‘sensible new breath of fresh air from the left’
It could be that that is actually his opinion (hard to fathom though it may seem to any who actually are left wing). But Slater touted the guy for a while didn't he?
Sadly that isn’t true. My employer, a CRI, has very specific policies about staff web sites.
Right, as I expected. So,
We very very very rarely get told we can’t publish.
quite specifically excluded the most obvious and easy form of publishing implicitly. In the context of the discussion that makes sense. I'm sorry about that, it's a mindset I have not yet accumulated. But I do suggest that the mindset itself is the lion's share of the problem, and that no solutions will occur within the context that automatically leaves out the obvious. So long as researchers themselves personally value these exclusive journals so highly, this can not change. This can only get worse.
So to me the question is: Why do you value them so highly? Are they really providing you with value? I don't just mean the value of being published in them, but the actual reading of them. Is their ability to pick out the good research from the bad really worth so much? Or is it quite literally their exclusivity that generates their value, almost in its entirety? That you can't even get the research any other way?
It's bizarre to think of this kind of human pyramid existing. No wonder people don't want to get into research. It's not just the money, it's the very idea that the quality of one's work and ideas counts for so little compared to one's access to the information channels, and all the kudos grafting involved.