It’s easy to laugh at some of the bizarre ideas and concepts that come out of academia, but if you want to really understand just how un-academic these “academics” can be even when purporting to be more serious than usual, you need to get it straight from the tap of (allegedly) peer-reviewed journal articles. There are fewer good sources for pointing out the more insane ones than the Real Peer Review channel on Twitter. The poor writing, fallacies, and lack of logic is discombobulated by them here:
We were informed in DMs that the article on "objectification" we previously discussed is not "bleeding edge of state of the art" and the actual bleeding edge of objectification research is this work (linked), so let's have a field day https://t.co/YSbRBd8AlK
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
the paper contains more red flags than a Soviet flag factory, with lots of claims that are reminiscent of good old priming. However, we decided to jump right into the fray and see what were the tools for "detecting" the so-called self-"objectification" that were "deployed"/2 pic.twitter.com/na9e92xQxs
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
So, without further ado, what are these subscales like? https://t.co/fsLmC2lvpJ /3 pic.twitter.com/5V658A0357
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
Frankly, one can only believe that any context-free answer on these scales can be evidence for Fredrickson and Roberts's self-objectification theory (notion that women are brainwashed into assuming "observer perspective", objectification "brand" authors use) only if one already/4
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
believes Fredrickson and Roberts's speculations to be correct 😏 (very much like the old chestnut of "in order to perceive the evidence of god's existence you must accept Scripture as true Word in your heart", such a classic scam 🤡), and if one at least tries to be slightly /5
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
saner about it one would have to try interpreting it in specific respondent context which is 1) very hard 2) wasn't done by authors and
3) is exactly the problem our admin once spotted with another, unrelated "bleeding edge" instrument https://t.co/kuTAt6uKlo
/6— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
If you think this someone all ends up making sense the further on it goes… you thought wrong.
(which is to say, in simpler terms, that whether response to, say "I feel ashamed of myself when 1 haven’t made the effort to look my best" indicates evil patriarchal brainwashing into perilous self-monitoring or presence of basic hygiene and unwillingness to be the reason why /7
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
some conferences "reserve the right to remove attendees and speakers with offensive bodily odor and dirt smears affecting furniture" 😅😏 (actual warning one of our contributors encountered in the wild at an academic event by the way) /8
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
depends on respondent-specific context and attempts to derive such judgment in a context-free manner, whether at individual respondent or group level, are ludicrous.
Same problem (albeit in much more severe form) is also present in the Body Consciousness Questionnaire which /9— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
authors use to produce an unpublished statistical slurry they employed to evaluate "poor man's Alexithymia" (of course, with a better paper we would have docked some points for citing an /10
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
unpublished instrument that was only "presented" at "Midwestern Psychological Association Conference, Chicago IL" and then lost to the ages without DOI or online link, never to be objectifyingly gazed upon by eyes of man or woman or dog ever again 🤣 but given that this paper /11
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
is a gigantic tire fire of enormous proportion (bleeding edge of burning vulcanized rubber at planetary scale, a tire fire so big it has its own climate system) this little hilarious prank on behalf of the authors barely even registers) /12
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
Of course, one might also assume that authors (and/or the Fredrickson and Roberts dynamic duo) deem context irrelevant because they see all aesthetic and functional bodily concerns as inappropriate and unacceptable for a trained feminist /13 pic.twitter.com/d0M5EqRFV5
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
whether "uncanny disheveled slob with body odor akin to the aromatic blend of a U.S. Marine's socks" is proper way for a trained feminist to be is perhaps best settled by the people in question and should probably be outside the scope of academic inquiry altogether 🤡💩 /14
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
So much for "state of the art"
So much for "bleeding" edge (we now seriously suspect it is not blood staining the edge)
FIN
— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022
And remember, this is the stuff that passed peer review and/or professional specialist editors.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.12.22 : The Other McCain