Lol, sounds totally unbiased to me...

After all, why wouldn't you believe in unbiased reports from a channel named "neutrality studies"?

The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don't understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it's all about networking, all about names. I don't know why we can't just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

And which reviewer or publishers verifies how "significant" a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like "visualization" or "experimental design"? That's right, nobody. It's not even remotely traceable who did what if you're a reviewer.

Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it's all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.

Ich finds witzig. Aber die runterwählis zeigen dass das hier eine bierernste Angelegenheit ist hahaha.

Wrong. EU countries have given over 50 billion $ support so far. Germany alone has given roughly 28 billion. There's only a handful states that are in opposition against it, including lighthouses of democracy like Hungary...

They probably have their identities tied to meat consumption. That's also a reason for the climate denialism. I recently learned about petro-masculinity and it seems very plausible to me.

Guilt by association is no joke! Even friendship can be dangerous! Better to avoid any human contact to not draw suspicion.

Klingt für mich fast nach einem Versuch des öffentlichen Dienstes, moderner zu werden. Da würde das genau so laufen hahaha.

Amazing how you have the patience to address frustrated people like that. I guess this surely is the way but encountering these baseless yet absolute accusations just makes me angry haha.

Humans have a history of violence as well as altruism. And with an increasing degree of societal complexity, humans also have a consistent record of violence reduction. See e.g. "The better angels of our nature" (Pinker, 2011).

Painting humans as intrinsically violent is not backed by evidence.

Rock and stone brother

G R O N D