Changdong Oh

(Former) Data scientist in the game industry. Exploring 'sociological' aspects in culture and society.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@beingsince 브렉시트 관련해서는 또 하나의 화두가 선거제도가 아닐까 싶어요. 리조인 찬성 여론 대부분이 런던 광역권 도시 유권자들에게서 나오고 있는 상황이고 지방 유권자들은 대체로 부정적인데, 노동당 입장에서는 이미 강세를 보이는 도시보다는 스윙보터를 신경쓸 수밖에 없지 않을까요.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@spaceastrium 저는 차라리 헝가리(양적 연구)라도 독립해서 별개의 연구 전통을 확립하고 통계적 과학과 근접하면 좋을거라 생각합니다만, 그게 대헝가리가 아니라 여기저기 뜯어먹힌 WW1 이후의 헝가리가 될거라는 점도 문제입니다. 이미 네트워크과학, 조직이론 등을 발전시키고 다른 분야에 홀랑 먹히기도 했고요

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@spaceastrium 그들도 학술적 엄밀성을 추구하지만... 제가 보기에 그 기준이 통계적 방법론과는 너무 다릅니다. 사회의 가장 밑바닥에서 살아가는 사람들과 라포를 형성하고 현실을 고발하는 것이 연구 프로그램의 중추가 되는데, 자연스럽게 theoria와 praxis가 구분이 안 되는 순간이 발생합니다.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@aqn_purple2 Yet, despite their military contributions during the war, these colonies are ultimately not classified as victorious nations within the post-war period. The colonies of the defeated nations, including Korea, were also treated within this exact same context.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@aqn_purple2 This differs significantly from the case of Imperial Japan, which provided only nominal wages on record to Koreans while subjecting them to de facto slavery. Even as 'second-class citizens,' these individuals were treated as integral members of the armed forces by the FFF and BIA

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

물론 앱 사용량이나 트래픽 기반 데이터에 기반한 분석을 보면... 이 정책이 실제로 효과를 거두기까지는 갈 길이 꽤나 멀어 보입니다. 저는 사실 EU에서 진행되는 DSA 논의처럼 소셜미디어 규제는 이용자가 아니라 플랫폼 사이드의 규제가 더 중요하다고 생각합니다.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

양극화가 극심해진 현대 정치에서 '청소년 소셜미디어 규제'가 이례적일 정도로 좌우 모두의 지지를 받는건 정말 특이한 일입니다. 최초로 정책을 도입한 정당은 대체로 중도좌파 성향이지만, 호주 자유당, 영국의 리폼이나 프랑스 국민연합 등 우파도 이 정책의 '필요성'을 부정하지는 않습니다.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

미국에서도 비슷합니다. 이 문제를 학술에서 정책 영역으로 옮겨오는 데 가장 큰 기여를 했던 조너선 하이트의 상원 청문회 증언도 공화-민주 양쪽의 초당적 협력에 의해 진행됐죠.

https://t.co/nlzr2a7FgO

호주의 경우 이제 6개월이긴 하지만 유권자들의 반응도 매우 호의적입니다.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@spaceastrium https://t.co/nlzr2a7FgO

호주에선 일단 금지 이후 오히려 유권자들의 정책에 대한 지지와 만족도는 더 높아졌더군요. 물론 Self-report survey의 특성상 정책의 '효과'를 보여준다고 할 수는 없습니다. 트래픽이나 액티브앱 자료에 기반한 연구를 보면 정책의 효과는 아직 제한적입니다.

[無異 @taekie]

큰 흐름으로 대선에서 투표했던 20%정도는 이번 지선에서는 투표를 하지 않았고. 이준석 표의 50%는 오세훈에게 갔다. 구청장 선거에서는 반대로 민주당이 국민의힘보다 더 많은 표를 받았는데. 그걸로 추정하면 이재명을 뽑았던 2%정도는 오세훈을 뽑았을 것으로 추정.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@tbarson49 The report names two people for quantitative help, but with no academic careers or publications, they aren't accredited data researchers. Still, I hope the minimal quantitative evidence this report relies on is made public soon.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

It is a profound irony that a report criticizing the political bias and loss of rigor in the humanities and social sciences fails to provide a single shred of empirical, quantitative evidence, relying instead on anecdotal evidence.

[John Sailer @JohnDSailer]

NEW: a report from Vanderbilt and WashU just dropped, taking on the "state of scholarship in the humanities and social sciences," a big topic among critics of higher ed.

Read along w/ me 🧵

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@blinky4thewin Beyond the lack of scientometric experts among the authors, it’s just weird that they didn't even mention prominent work like Haidt's HxA. Basing arguments on proper citations is literally Academia 101.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@blinky4thewin This thread is literally only 5 tweets long. Is reading through it before commenting really that difficult? My very last tweet even provided a specific citation as an example of a 'compelling quantitative study.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

@hollerkid1987 If this is actually a real person's alt account and not a bot, that’s truly pathetic.

[신수현 @beingsince]

지금까지 부정선거를 외치는 사람들의 속내는 사전투표 폐지였음. 재선거를 외치는 속내는 '당일투표'로만 재선거하자는 주장인데, 이게 되겠냐고. 이번 사태의 의제는 '선거권 보장'임. 선거권 보장을 하려면 투표율을 낮추면 안 됨. 여기서부터 스텝이 꼬임.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

And if your proxy for academic integrity is student enrollment or degree completion rates... Well, I was unaware that departments of business had been upholding such flawlessly rigorous standards of scientific practice all this time!

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

First, I would like to re-examine the actual focus of this report. The report itself centers strictly on publication culture, peer review, academic societies and conferences, and research grants-the very fields where professional "scientific knowledge" is produced.

[Matt Marsden @matt_marsden123]

Critics here are concerned about a lack of comprehensive data backing up this critique, and that is fair. If that's what they want though, they need to support such an effort...though is it reasonable to believe they actually will support such an effort? You can't have it both ways.

What would it take to produce comprehensive quantitative data for reform or better accountability or oversight? You'd have to thoroughly analyze what is happening both on and off paper in the classroom, among other things like analyzing priorities in grant funding, the creation or support for various initiatives that may see ideological imbalance, and the like. Regarding classes specifically, the first is a little easier, by analyzing syllabi and other records. The second is a little harder...how does a professor actually come across in class, how do students perceive it, and do those match well enough?

Will such analysis happen? There are already a number of syllabi transparency policies or laws, yet they get significant pushback or controversy at times. Some professors have expressed concern for being targeted personally (e.g. doxxed) if people don't like their methods. Others don't want to have to face "politicized" criticism...but shouldn't we be fine with debate? It's not hard to tell critics to "read all these books I've read, then come talk to me". Most may not bother. Either way, we can't make progress on robust data and reform if the professors won't give access to the raw data, i.e. their syllabi, materials, etc. Either way, there is reason to believe that analyzing syllabi can be illustrative and support the case for viewpoint diversity and the like: Professors Need to Diversify What They Teach. It isn't indoctrination. But it is a lack of ideological diversity.
https://t.co/Zq6VLqrpIS.

Secondly, regarding what happens off the record, meaning the things that professors say and the perceived angles they put off...is there any concern to be had? Again, yes: College Students Are Self-Censoring to Fit In: Political homogeneity among professors pushes students to suppress their own views, data show.
https://t.co/1w4seLrTqN

These are in line with myriad other similar critiques in education more broadly that one might not know about if they don't ever engage with such resources and outlets.

So people continuing to try to counter such consistent criticism of academia by asking for more evidence need to be open to giving thorough access to what they actually do on and off paper. If that doesn't happen, there will be no reform because it will be a never ending game of nuh uh...yuh huh. There should be nothing to hide. We should welcome debate. That's literally the point of academia. People may be concerned about some grand government project of forcing everyone in line with one topic or another, which is a legit concern coming from both the left and the right. However the ball is in the court of the left now. They dominate these spaces, and in such a case, they must take responsibility and action, or if not, they need to stop complaining when others do that job for them. In this case, support efforts at thorough data analysis, suggest another method of accountability and reform, or admit you don't actually want any progress here. If nobody will take action, then watch public confidence in Higher ed continue to gasp for air for this very reason...this along with rising costs, declining enrollment, AI, foreign competition, affirmative action controversy, bad policy decisions like getting rid of or watering down entrance metrics, and more. The choice is yours.

[Changdong Oh @Shevek91]

Additionally, public confidence in higher ed is a problem, but it's not due to the "moral decay" of specific fields. Where's quantitative evidence that the humanities or social sciences alone are losing trust? This is a systemic issue driven by polarization and communication.