Wow- he got that quote from me a WHILE ago. I mean, a long while! I'm glad to see he was able to get the article out. And thank you for pointing me towards it- I would have never known!!!

shameless self promotion, but a piece I was asked to write about this subject of AI bots and connection, given the extended ethnography I did. default.blog/p/the-ai-com...

From an analysis I trust as a researcher studying online spaces, the average "content creator" is around.....29...so, yeah, if these individuals would likely fall into the "older than average" category.

(and frankly, it depends on the 'content' you wanna talk about...)

It's very (sigh) performative, as many things are done for seeing and (eclestically) consuming them, and all very rote - a system that once you get it, you feel "in".

And the Holy See reinforces whose "in" and who is "out", like barring non Caths from communion. It reinforced feeling "special"

Catholicism felt...old. Connected to a long, long history. It's like, in Magic, there were Traditions older than the Order of Hermes (in the practical sense), but the OoH felt like they put some structure and got their shit together.

And like the OOH, Catholicism is very ritualistic.

there's a great piece I've cited for one of my articles that points out the NFL draft is nothing but the male gaze gone wild. And you're right - these are stylized images of what women want, they are stylized images of what men are supposed ot crave to be...

Essentially this is a "field commission", which the article points out (not by name) have been around forever. While this isn't unheard of, 4 at the same time is a bit...whatever.

Speaking as a vet, I can tell you light colonels (what we call them) generally know crap about mil procedure anyways.

I was taught LOOOOONG ago "speaking in absolutes is dangerous". I won't be giving that up anytime soon...

I *shred* this every time I read it as a reviewer. Just like when I read "nothing has been written about..." - y'all don't get some reviewers take that as a challenge, & 99.2% of the time you're *dead* wrong, & I'll recommend a rejection (bc it's clear you don't "do" due diligence).

every time. When I got my postdoc, before I even told my family I told and thanked my letter writers. Same with my faculty appointment- I messaged them within 24 hours to let them know. They deserve those flowers.

I'd have to trust the IRB actually looked at the justification (any call of deception requires a full IRB review). I recognize one of the main reasons for IRBs is to stop sociopathic work like Zimbardo or Humpries which were thought of as "valid" in their day. So winds might change.

I can't say that- I didn't see the app. Before getting my PhD and being at an HBCU, I worked at Johns Hopkins and their CITI has (or had) a special module about deception in research. I don't like deception as a mechanism, but I understand sometimes it's justified,

It's kind of untrue to say "no proper IRB review would have approved this", because there are exceptions for deception if (and only if) there's a valid argument about value. And while I don't like it (at all), a researcher *could* claim that, and a decent IRB would accept it.

I said a few weeks ago that - in 1995- if someone *implied* a member of Congress was doing what Matt Gaetz actually did... they'd have resigned within days of the accusation. No "ethics committee investigation" - the member would have left a cartoon cloud of smoke they'd leave so quickly....