unmotivated — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toI think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

unmotivated2y

I think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

Apparently both Bailey and I agree about your bias. Accounting for (and making disclosures of conflict of interest about) biases isn't "meta-level sneering". It's a fundamental part of science.

Per Disclosure of conflict of interest in scientific publications (2020):

Taking appropriate measures to avoid bias and maintain transparency in the execution, reporting, and publication process improves scientific objectivity, integrity, and credibility of research findings.
....

Internationally, most scientific journals (over 90%) have adopted policies that mandate “disclosure of COI for authors"

[Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7819374/]

Failing to disclose COI's relegates research to the bottom 10% of scientific publications: shit-tier, quack-adjacent "science". (And yes, wokeness / Social Justice Fundamentalism has infected that bottom 10% of shit-tier publications, and yes, it's cancerously... (read more)

-6

Replying toI think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

unmotivated2y

I think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

For the purpose of reading my tone, I'm grateful that you added the disclosure. My priors have been adjusted, and you're alright in my book.

(I've been welcomed into the LessWrong community, after my high effort comment, with negative karma and the inability to even vote, but I'd otherwise give you an upvote.)

I think disclosures of conflicts of interest are important when you're authoritatively presenting conclusions, or when you're authoritatively rebutting scientific conclusions. We don't need to know our personal details when we're just talking to each other, and not standing on a metaphorical stage making proclamations. Nevertheless, to reciprocate, I'm not a HSTS. (For the audience, HSTS = homosexual transsexual, a transwoman... (read 684 more words →)

Replying toI think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

unmotivated2y

I think Michael Bailey's dismissal of my autogynephilia questions for Scott Alexander and Aella makes very little sense

A scientist who sits on the board of a tobacco company, and who publishes a study that finds tobacco to be perfectly harmless, will have his or her study treated with extra skepticism, owing to their study's inevitable bias. If the scientist fails to disclose their conflict of interest, they'll be immediately ostracized from the scientific community. A failure to disclose a conflict of interest is an affront if not a direct attack on the credibility of science itself. It is unacceptable.

The author of this post, tailcalled, is self-admittedly autogynephilic. (See: https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/about/). Whatever pretenses of scientific merit his study and his findings may have, he failed to disclose his conflict of interest... (read more)