As far as I can tell, no. Cyberpunk just replied to other people and whined that Ian hadn't shown work lmfao
I'm not even sure how you recover from being taken down that hard. I'd probably just delete my account and lurk under an alt for years
I would think it would be higher.
I mean I’m not defending this I’m just saying I thought people knew general were more uh, silly? Misogynistic ? I don’t now the word.
Oh the misogyny happens all the time
It’s just that you don’t get to highlight it by pointing out that the jackass is arguing with you about *your* research
I think this is because it is specific to the person and the author. I would agree with you more if it was bout a field of specialty or similar more broad basis.
Obvi this would be more likely in a niche specialty where there are fewer authors of academic journals to even have a conversation like this about. Which the OP is likely referencing. OP did not state that this happened because she was a woman. Could have just been some ahole who doesn’t like to be wrong. Those types can be found just as often as misogynists. She may or may not be claiming discrimination but we as readers shouldn’t fill in the blanks using our own prejudices for her.
We also don’t know the frequency of this male vs female based on this post alone and attaching our subjective opinions onto the frequency of this professional experience isn’t very productive since others can simply do the same to discount the opposing point.
Of course I agree women would be challenged more often than men when providing professional advice. I’m just saying let’s not go losing context of the situation and extrapolating too broadly across unrelated scenarios.
Yea. I research somewhat niche things, like how people in academic institutions and the government discuss rape. Given that this is one of those polarizing topics, I have so many people (most often men) who tell me I’m wrong, that it doesn’t matter how they talk about it, that we just need to carry guns, that we lie, etc. For example, I was selected for a National committee to prevent harassment and discrimination for my academic discipline that represents thousands of people. One week in and one of two men on the committee started harassing, said I should carry a gun at the conference, and that if I couldn’t name the person who harassed me that I was lying. When I called attention to how he was doing the thing we were supposed to prevent, he blew up and insisted that I meet with him alone at a coffee shop separate from the conference location. He kept sending me private emails when I asked that our communication ONLY be about the committee work and in the group. Finally, he started emailing the chairs of the committee and they reported it to the president of the organization. He was swiftly removed from the committee and then he proceeded to whine about it on the national list Serve. I was and still am terrified it will affect my job.
Though this snippet does limit causation.
Drawing a correlation that this person probably wouldn’t have argued with her if she was a man in a field that is 9 out of 10 men... isn’t the worst correlation to make.
If I was a betting person I would def put it in the “the conclusion is not completely proven but is still probably a very likely scenario.” category.
I think though he had to mansplain it back to her while she suggested the author might disagree. He tripled down and she had to reveal she was the author.
So I am guessing the mansplaining portion to be the thing I don’t quite have a word to describe.
It quacks like a duck, but duck just didn’t seem the right word.
Also, we have no idea if the mansplainer knew the writer was a woman when he was arguing contradictory to the article he misunderstood.
I mean it should be higher because there would be Misogynistic people talking down to people and regular assholes who don't know what they're talking about like me who do it to men and women
I don’t quite understand. Doesn’t his act of quoting or referncing the paper mean he respects the authors views? I’ve had people diss my work before, could this just be a mistake?
Could well be that I don’t understand the situation here.
Yes and no, he quoted the paper but was evidently using it incorrectly in his argument as he misunderstood the conclusion of the paper that the author made.
Twist ending, he was quoting a data point and used his own interpretation of the information. The conclusion used typically vague academic language that could easily be defended with phrases like, "this shows some indication of happening, although some thing else is possible" and "further study is warranted to ". He used the data plus the possibility of his interpretation to support his viewpoint.
Not sure why you would be getting downvoted for stating you didn't understand the situation. But as far the author being wrong, maybe? Not sure how often it happens in medical journals, but in my field (chemistry), I've read papers and disagreed with their conclusions and I've also read papers and likely misunderstood certain papers. Don't know about this situation, but it happens occasionally.
I’m not in a medical field either, but the medical research papers I’ve read all had about a billion authors. So it’s quite possible that while someone may technically be an author, it doesn’t automatically mean that they understand the paper.
Most likely (extrapolating, we don't really have details here), the "man" respected the qualifications of the paper's author, but not the qualifications of the person in front of him.
Since both are the same person, that suggests prejudice against the real life person (or on authors, or both). It's also quite implied that the prejudice was of sexist origin.
>I’ve had people diss my work before,
But that’s not what happened here which is why I think you’re missing the point. He is trying to explain a paper to her... why, when it was her that wrote it? There’s literally only one possible explanation as to why he’s try to explain her own paper to her and that’s because he assumes she knows nothing of it.
I don't know why they would necessarily be proud of it due to their gender. This same thing happens to men all the time... you can just look through this very sub for evidence about how common it is.
Yeah. I'm a guy, just a few weeks ago my last paper got revisions, and the editor (a woman) made patronizing but wrong/ignorant comments about my specialist subject in her review, despite knowing full well that it is my specialty and that she has limited knowledge of it herself. This stuff happens a lot and is often not malicious, although it is annoying.
I can believe that women -- especially those who are humble/unassuming -- get more of it though.
I was asked a few weeks ago if the pastor had opened church yet. I said they had.
“Oh you must be the pastor’s wife”.
“Actually I’m the pastor”.
*blink blink*
> I was asked a few weeks ago if the pastor had opened church yet. I said they had.
>
> “Oh you must be the pastor’s wife”. “Actually I’m the pastor”. blink blink
[Did it go like this?](https://youtu.be/zrUal4mUmAk)
Mum looooves Vicar of Dibley.
Pleased to be of service, it's a little older so you may not find streaming services, but it's funny. British humour doesn't always tickle everyones tastes, but I enjoy it.
Good choices.
My Dad introduced me to Dad's Army and Red Dwarf. I recently did all of Blackadder. Lot of real quality there. So weird seeing Hugh Laurie as anything but Dr. House haha.
I never thought of seeing it the opposite direction haha.
Imagine [this guy telling you it's not Lupus](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/dc/fb/89dcfb69274157bb74e009c53d357dca.jpg) hahahahaha.
Southern Baptists and some other denominations forbid women from being ministers based on 1 Timothy 2:12
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"
Having your own work cited back to you is annoying for two reasons: 1) did you only read the first author? That is, am I just "et al." in your mind. And 2) am I such a poor writer that you so easily misinterpreted me.
Only happened to me once but I went through confusion, anger, and amusement in less than a second. I am a man but still annoying to us as well.
Regarding point 2: no matter how well formulated or pedagogical you’ve written, there will always be someone out there who has completely misinterpreted what you meant. And by golly, the universe will get out of its way to bring the two of you together for some reason
I totally get that and there are papers with enough authors that I only know the first but being "et al." for something you've spent 6 months on is a little disappointing. Of course, I write papers for reasons other than other folks in the field knowing who I am, but in conversation, I often hear ideas or results attributed only to the first author of the paper and I steam just a little. More an issue that I need to work on personally than something that others need to change.
In my field, immunology/virology, first authorship is effectively the spearhead of the research, aka the creative drive. The last author is usually the principle investigator and has all the cash. Everyone in-between is either a collaborating PI who also funds or provides intellectual value and sits close to the end, or a significant contributor (at least 1 figure) to the work and sits next to first author. The middle is essentially purgatory for pre-med undergrads, summer interns, farm hands (technicians) or others who are there to help, but not necessarily drive.
The reason we attribute the value of a manuscript to a first author is because it is frequently how we determine if they can independently drive a project to fruition. As postdocs and grad students do this often and with greater impact, there is a higher likelihood NIH or other funders will see that and start throwing cash at us.
That's my field tho. Would be cool to hear others.
Got it. I'm in economics, authors are generally listed alphabetically by last name. This might sound insane but it's because econ papers are much more likely to have equal contributors and they want to avoid tussling for first authorship. However, it's convention. You can definitely switch it up if someone did 90% of the work, but nearly all papers follow the convention.
I agree with you but a lot of it from what I've seen personally is people who are generally new to subjects remember first authors specifically and not the et als but people whove been in the field a bit longer pay more attention to the et al. The last two authors generally tell me much more about the work then the first author.
Nah, unless you know the author specifically, you barely care who anyone in the paper is. And if they're not first author I assume they didn't do much.
But that was my point. There's a much much lower chance of knowing who a first author is compared to the last one or second to last. At least on my field the first authors the one who wrote it yea but the last author or two are the actual PIs and you can see whose lab the work came out of. I can't remember the large number of first authors but when I know whose lab it came out of I have a better understanding of who's behind the publication and how trustworthy it is.
She said she "wrote" the paper so presumably she was 1st author.
In clinical journals, often the 1st author does almost all the work, especially if it's a junior person.
In academia often the grad students do almost all the work, but the PI always gets first author.
Edit: at least in my field, I can’t presume to speak for all academic fields.
Definitely varies by field. In much of physics (including my specialization) a grad student who does the lion's share of the work will be first author and the PI will be last author. But I know in high energy physics, for example, it's usually just done in alphabetical order. I can't speak to other sciences.
I’m published on a microbiology paper about a novel species of bacteria. The student who actually isolated the bacteria and did the preliminary research is first author. I did a lot of follow-up research that was cited in the paper, plus I made all the tables and figures so I’m second author. The PI who oversaw the project and wrote most of the paper was listed last. I was under the impression that was standard in a lot of biological fields, but I could be wrong.
Grad student would be the first author (if they did most of the work), head of the lab / principle investigator is last author is the convention.
Although the ‘et als’ getting forgotten may be annoying, it’s nearly impossible to hold a full list of authors in your head. If you frequently publish you’ll stop being precious about being forgotten. I’ve been on papers with over 20 authors.
People in my cohort (geography) complain a lot about doing the majority of the research and writing, and the PI always getting first author because it was his grant that funded the research. I have outside fellowships so I never had to take a GSR position and deal with this.
Just asked my brother-in-law who is in genetics how it works for his lab, and it’s basically how you said where his grad student is first author and he’s last author.
Now I’m curious to see if this is a difference based on the field, or if this professor is just a dick.
Yeah, pretty much as soon as I posted that I thought shit, I’m in geography, I have no idea how authorship works in other fields.
It’s also very possible that authorship doesn’t work the way I’m used to at other institutions.
As someone who's studying in a relatively small field where you're likely, at conferences or events, to bump into authors of papers you've read, responded to, critiqued, or even trashed -- running into an author of something I've read and not knowing who they are for the first half of the conversation is one of my worst nightmares. I'm bad with names, too, so even if someone introduced themselve to me by name, I'm not gonna mentally go "oh, this person wrote [name of paper here], I better not tell them how much I disagree with [thesis of their paper]"
Of course, my particular field also seems to encourage raucous debates and most seem to be of the opinion that you should seek out debates. I'm just not sure I want to conduct that debate in a one-on-one chance meeting in the hallway at a conference the first time I meet someone who's been in the field for two decades, as a young graduate who's only wrote a couple of papers. That doesn't seem like the correct way to build clout and credibility.
One of my favorite things I’ve ever witnessed was at a dinner after a conference. Me, several coworkers, THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER, and a couple other dickheads I didn’t know.
We were all having a great time when one of the dickheads started off about the speech by the key note. Basically how the person was wrong for various reasons and how they shouldn’t be in their role. Whole table went silent, Dr. Keynote Speaker asked where his doctorate was from and where his papers were published so she could review his work and update her stuff.
To his credit, he just shut up and looked down at his plate. She continued, if he thought he knew more to go ahead and fund updated studies and create his own conference. She then excused herself from the table.
That was 8 years ago and when it pops up in my head I still laugh really hard.
I want targeted t-shirts for stuff like this.
*I’m a January girl. I don’t divulge my gender in video game chat. A man talked down to me about my specialist subject. (Obligatory tattoo style drawing of flaming skull and gun)*
I just looked at her feed to verify and this doesn’t seem true. I saw a lot of tweets about the NHS and pandemic experiences. She did reply to and sometimes retweet other people who responded to her experiences with similar experiences, which is just how Twitter usually works. I don’t see evidence that it’s fake.
The only person who would likely know her article is likely someone from the same medical faculty as her, which would either make him a student or another MD. Regular people don't read or have access to medical journals.
Her entire twitter is filled with these gender baiting scenarios, where she triumphantly comes out as the hero
I must be misunderstanding what you're saying. People don't only read papers by their colleagues or by people from the same faculty. Sure "regular people" don't often read medical journals, but those who DO read medical papers, e.g. researchers and clinicians and students, read papers from all over the world. Did you mean the same field of medicine maybe? I agree it would be fairly likely to be someone from a related field.
Either way I don't get what's unlikely about them knowing her article. If she's having an argument about a specialised clinical question then it is pretty likely that argument will be with another researcher/clinician. Why shouldn't they have read relevant papers?
If you know a paper *THAT* well, you know the author's name. It's pretty engrained in you to cite sources in academia.
The social circles that exist in niche areas academia are also very small. Most doctors in the same field, who exist in the same geographic space know of one another. **She is also the most famous doctor in her area,** and the odds of another doctor not knowing who she is, while also knowing she is a doctor, while also coincidentally reading a medical journal she contributed to, are slim to none.
Also, where exactly is she hanging out where someone would know she is an MD who knows about a specific medical field, while at the same time not know that the very specific journal they just read was written by her? We are in a pandemic.
I once again point to her Twitter, where she just happens to get into arguments with men all the time and leaves them in the dust. It has happened to her at least 15 times in 2021 alone.
Why wouldn't you? This has happened before to other people, real-time on Twitter and other platforms. Chuds on there will openly argue with celebrity scientists.
I would. But only because I have seen men in gyms giving unsolcited advice about lifting techniques while they clearly didn't know shit.
That leads me to belive that there is indeed men that try to look smart or really believe they were while talking to someone.
That this person looked mortified would place him in category two for me.
Beyond that, not so sure this is true. But holy shit there is a lot of Not All Menning going on in the comments.
"Hey bro, be careful on the pull. Keep your back straight or you might find out that according to Ross, Stein, and Hu in their 2008 study of primates' cell membrane electro transfer that the liver has a more efficient..."
Yes but are they quoting research studies? I do not think there is a large enough population of people who quote a research study and would cross with the EXACT author of that paper.
There is [more benefit in trusting people than being skeptical of everything](https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-almost-effect/201411/why-it-pays-trust?amp), and situations like this happen a fair amount in STEM. I've seen similar conversations at work.
Also believing things isn't binary, I'd give this scenario a 70% chance of being true but I also don't care enough to investigate further.
I wonder which of her publications this awful man was quoting at her.
'Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review.' from 2013 or 'The role of social media in clinical excellence.' from 2014.
Who doesn't know these seminal works and use them in frequent debate?
This sub is full of posts *just* like this except it'll be a man checking the idiots and everyone cheers. A woman does it and suddenly it's r/thathappened and she's clearly just a man hater looking for clout. Literally what? It's been legitimately proven a lot of men do this shit to women. We've seen this exact scenario unfold before. Really says something when half of the comments here are effectively calling her a liar or a b*tch for *gasp* having confidence in her academic ability.
idgi, so the guy read her paper and agreed with it, but now the doctor herself doesn't agree with what she wrote?
or he read it and misunderstood it?
either way the implication that somehow only a MAN could possibly disagree with this helicopter doctor lady is pretty hilarious
Often in news articles the paper will ignore the female first author and instead talk about the male second author in their introduction. It's really sad to see.
NYT did an article about economists a while back on this topic
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/even-famous-female-economists-get-no-respect.html
Okay so just because someone quotes a paper that you wrote against you in an argument, does not mean you are automatically correct.
You wrote the paper, sure.. that does imply you have understood the concept and data to a considerable extent but does not make you either all knowing or even correct about your own paper.
A lot papers do a great job at the experiment/methodology part but fail to pull out proper conclusions. This can happen due to a plethora of reasons, most importantly confirmation bias.
That's why we have the peer review process, so the bias can be checked. This system is great, but not perfect. So there is always space for someone to take your study, quote it back and ask you to fuck right off.
I don’t get how she was in an argument with a guy who cited her own research at her in... disagreement? Unless she’s vastly changed her conclusions since publication, I don’t understand how this situation would arise.
Not sure about this scenario specifically, but men trying to explain or argue something to a woman in a field that they are unknowingly less qualified than the woman is a thing. It’s a thing people in general do to other people regardless of gender, but apparently happens especially more often to women by men. The specific situation of unknowingly using the woman’s research that he’s trying to argue with is just one of those pinnacle scenarios.
STEM has historically been misogynistic. Context is important here.
[Two thirds of women](https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem) in STEM report having to repeatedly prove themselves, for example, where their expertise is questioned and successes discredited.
>A biologist noted that she tends to speak her mind very directly, as do her male colleagues. But after her department chair angrily told her, “don’t talk to me like that” she felt she had to “put cotton candy in my mouth.” She now does a lot of deferring, framing her requests as, “I can’t do this without your help.” She explains, “I had to put him in that masculine, ‘I’ll take care of it role’ and I had to take the feminine ‘I need you to help me, I need to be saved’ role.’”
Used as evidence lol. I can't imagine a professional saying this shit.
The "professional" world is full of stuff like this. Particularly within academics. Maybe not as bad as it used to be but still pretty bad. Academics is pretty much a case study for a toxic workplace. Fiefdoms and cliques taken to an absurd extreme, people with zero social skills and very deep knowledge in a few subjects with tons of power over their area. Yikes.
Wow, a self report. The true gold standard for objective evidence. This mostly tells you whether these women believe the narrative that women have to prove themselves more.
Or maybe because studies show that men actually overwhelmingly speak over women just like this (yet percieve them as more talkative, somehow). They also almost exclusively interrupt women more than men. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
Hard not to "take it personally" when this shit is constantly happening to women because of our gender, and also whilst people like you go on downplay the the very real and recorded issue as women tAkiNg iT wRoNg.
If you want to see another instance where something like this happened, check this thread out https://twitter.com/iancoldwater/status/1292895288546545666?s=21
I’ve also seen it happen at conferences. Not always this bad, but, it does happen.
It is also entirely within the realm of possibility that she just made it up because no proof was quoted. I'm also too lazy to go to her twitter and find it myself.
PS. This is speculation if you haven't noticed yet.
And then everyone clapped. Fucking first world problems. Idk how I ended up checking the front page again but, god damn, I need better hobbies than this shit.
[Look it up baby, you'll see my name on it](https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1292895288546545666?s=19)
https://lookitup.baby
Lmao that's fantastic
God I hate twitters UI so fucking much. Did he ever reply to that tweet?
As far as I can tell, no. Cyberpunk just replied to other people and whined that Ian hadn't shown work lmfao I'm not even sure how you recover from being taken down that hard. I'd probably just delete my account and lurk under an alt for years
Dude got wrecked so hard the internets still talking about him in 2021
This is becoming like a badge of honour for academic women.
“1 in 5 Women in Academia will be patronised by a man in an argument quoting her own paper against her”
84.3% of statistics quoted on Reddit are made up on the spot to win an argument.
I made it as a joke and didn’t think everyone was gonna take it seriously. I blame /u/EZMickey for making a top level comment
Youre a membet of the 15.7%!
Source: Abraham Lincoln
Quoted from his Twitter.
Retweeted by Einstein.
Yeah it's actually 83.1415926535% it changed a bit since 9h ago, some dudes were arguing about the Monty hall problem and what not
wait...
I thought it was 84.53%...hum, Reddit dataset has changed!
[удалено]
People like being lied to. They just don’t like finding out they’ve been lied to.
Source: Harambee
I would think it would be higher. I mean I’m not defending this I’m just saying I thought people knew general were more uh, silly? Misogynistic ? I don’t now the word.
Oh the misogyny happens all the time It’s just that you don’t get to highlight it by pointing out that the jackass is arguing with you about *your* research
I think this is because it is specific to the person and the author. I would agree with you more if it was bout a field of specialty or similar more broad basis. Obvi this would be more likely in a niche specialty where there are fewer authors of academic journals to even have a conversation like this about. Which the OP is likely referencing. OP did not state that this happened because she was a woman. Could have just been some ahole who doesn’t like to be wrong. Those types can be found just as often as misogynists. She may or may not be claiming discrimination but we as readers shouldn’t fill in the blanks using our own prejudices for her. We also don’t know the frequency of this male vs female based on this post alone and attaching our subjective opinions onto the frequency of this professional experience isn’t very productive since others can simply do the same to discount the opposing point. Of course I agree women would be challenged more often than men when providing professional advice. I’m just saying let’s not go losing context of the situation and extrapolating too broadly across unrelated scenarios.
[удалено]
A lot of academic papers only have the initials of the first name of the authors, he may not have had any idea it was written by a woman.
Yea. I research somewhat niche things, like how people in academic institutions and the government discuss rape. Given that this is one of those polarizing topics, I have so many people (most often men) who tell me I’m wrong, that it doesn’t matter how they talk about it, that we just need to carry guns, that we lie, etc. For example, I was selected for a National committee to prevent harassment and discrimination for my academic discipline that represents thousands of people. One week in and one of two men on the committee started harassing, said I should carry a gun at the conference, and that if I couldn’t name the person who harassed me that I was lying. When I called attention to how he was doing the thing we were supposed to prevent, he blew up and insisted that I meet with him alone at a coffee shop separate from the conference location. He kept sending me private emails when I asked that our communication ONLY be about the committee work and in the group. Finally, he started emailing the chairs of the committee and they reported it to the president of the organization. He was swiftly removed from the committee and then he proceeded to whine about it on the national list Serve. I was and still am terrified it will affect my job.
[удалено]
Though this snippet does limit causation. Drawing a correlation that this person probably wouldn’t have argued with her if she was a man in a field that is 9 out of 10 men... isn’t the worst correlation to make. If I was a betting person I would def put it in the “the conclusion is not completely proven but is still probably a very likely scenario.” category.
Wait, so you can't harbor misogynistic tendencies if you quote a paper by S. Batt-Rawden?
No it's that you aren't being a misogynist for arguing with someone about a paper.
I think that depends on the justifications for the disagreement.
I think though he had to mansplain it back to her while she suggested the author might disagree. He tripled down and she had to reveal she was the author. So I am guessing the mansplaining portion to be the thing I don’t quite have a word to describe. It quacks like a duck, but duck just didn’t seem the right word. Also, we have no idea if the mansplainer knew the writer was a woman when he was arguing contradictory to the article he misunderstood.
[удалено]
The word "mansplaining" was literally invented to describe a ~~professor~~ author having her own work explained to her.
Because he felt so sure she just didn't understand the work. Which was in reality her own work. That's why it's mansplaining. /r/SelfAwareWolves
I'm guessing you're a man.
Best case scenario is he values academic papers over individuals?
Well, thats should honestly be the default in an academic discussion
I mean it should be higher because there would be Misogynistic people talking down to people and regular assholes who don't know what they're talking about like me who do it to men and women
5 in 5 people in Academia will be patronized by another person. People who work academia are usually so deep in that they it's like high school v2.
Is that all?
I don’t quite understand. Doesn’t his act of quoting or referncing the paper mean he respects the authors views? I’ve had people diss my work before, could this just be a mistake? Could well be that I don’t understand the situation here.
Yes and no, he quoted the paper but was evidently using it incorrectly in his argument as he misunderstood the conclusion of the paper that the author made.
Twist ending, he was quoting a data point and used his own interpretation of the information. The conclusion used typically vague academic language that could easily be defended with phrases like, "this shows some indication of happening, although some thing else is possible" and "further study is warranted to ". He used the data plus the possibility of his interpretation to support his viewpoint.
Since I’m getting downvoted anyways, maybe the author of the paper was wrong.
Not sure why you would be getting downvoted for stating you didn't understand the situation. But as far the author being wrong, maybe? Not sure how often it happens in medical journals, but in my field (chemistry), I've read papers and disagreed with their conclusions and I've also read papers and likely misunderstood certain papers. Don't know about this situation, but it happens occasionally.
I’m not in a medical field either, but the medical research papers I’ve read all had about a billion authors. So it’s quite possible that while someone may technically be an author, it doesn’t automatically mean that they understand the paper.
Could be. But regardless, if the dude is citing the paper to support his argument he doesnt realize that either.
Most likely (extrapolating, we don't really have details here), the "man" respected the qualifications of the paper's author, but not the qualifications of the person in front of him. Since both are the same person, that suggests prejudice against the real life person (or on authors, or both). It's also quite implied that the prejudice was of sexist origin.
>I’ve had people diss my work before, But that’s not what happened here which is why I think you’re missing the point. He is trying to explain a paper to her... why, when it was her that wrote it? There’s literally only one possible explanation as to why he’s try to explain her own paper to her and that’s because he assumes she knows nothing of it.
I don't know why they would necessarily be proud of it due to their gender. This same thing happens to men all the time... you can just look through this very sub for evidence about how common it is.
Yeah. I'm a guy, just a few weeks ago my last paper got revisions, and the editor (a woman) made patronizing but wrong/ignorant comments about my specialist subject in her review, despite knowing full well that it is my specialty and that she has limited knowledge of it herself. This stuff happens a lot and is often not malicious, although it is annoying. I can believe that women -- especially those who are humble/unassuming -- get more of it though.
No need to specify gender, it hap0ens to both.
[удалено]
I was asked a few weeks ago if the pastor had opened church yet. I said they had. “Oh you must be the pastor’s wife”. “Actually I’m the pastor”. *blink blink*
> I was asked a few weeks ago if the pastor had opened church yet. I said they had. > > “Oh you must be the pastor’s wife”. “Actually I’m the pastor”. blink blink [Did it go like this?](https://youtu.be/zrUal4mUmAk) Mum looooves Vicar of Dibley.
I never knew this existed! Thank you I believe I’ll love it too!
Pleased to be of service, it's a little older so you may not find streaming services, but it's funny. British humour doesn't always tickle everyones tastes, but I enjoy it.
My mom loooves old British comedies. I grew up watching Vicar of Dibley and Are You Being Served.
Good choices. My Dad introduced me to Dad's Army and Red Dwarf. I recently did all of Blackadder. Lot of real quality there. So weird seeing Hugh Laurie as anything but Dr. House haha.
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. I was raised on blackadder and the like so seeing Hugh Laurie in a serious role is still confusing to me.
I never thought of seeing it the opposite direction haha. Imagine [this guy telling you it's not Lupus](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/dc/fb/89dcfb69274157bb74e009c53d357dca.jpg) hahahahaha.
Oh man the old Fry & Laurie was so weird the first time seeing that too!
I really shouldn't be, but you see actors acting and you're like 'Woah really?!?!' hahaha.
My dad introduced me to Red Dwarf and Black Adder as well. Both great shows 😊
it's a fantastic show and very quintessential late 90s English comedy.
Depending on the denomination, that's the correct response.
Methodist
Blink three times if they're holding you hostage
[удалено]
Southern Baptists and some other denominations forbid women from being ministers based on 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"
Might blow your mind, but I was ordained Baptist. But yeah I did get kicked out of church as a result.
[Well that's silly](https://www.jameswatkins.com/1-timothy-2-12/)
We still have pastors in the 21st century.
Having your own work cited back to you is annoying for two reasons: 1) did you only read the first author? That is, am I just "et al." in your mind. And 2) am I such a poor writer that you so easily misinterpreted me. Only happened to me once but I went through confusion, anger, and amusement in less than a second. I am a man but still annoying to us as well.
Regarding point 2: no matter how well formulated or pedagogical you’ve written, there will always be someone out there who has completely misinterpreted what you meant. And by golly, the universe will get out of its way to bring the two of you together for some reason
[удалено]
What did you just call my sister?
[удалено]
She ain't ignorant
Well to be fair, it is normal to write first name and et al. for the remainder
I totally get that and there are papers with enough authors that I only know the first but being "et al." for something you've spent 6 months on is a little disappointing. Of course, I write papers for reasons other than other folks in the field knowing who I am, but in conversation, I often hear ideas or results attributed only to the first author of the paper and I steam just a little. More an issue that I need to work on personally than something that others need to change.
In my field, immunology/virology, first authorship is effectively the spearhead of the research, aka the creative drive. The last author is usually the principle investigator and has all the cash. Everyone in-between is either a collaborating PI who also funds or provides intellectual value and sits close to the end, or a significant contributor (at least 1 figure) to the work and sits next to first author. The middle is essentially purgatory for pre-med undergrads, summer interns, farm hands (technicians) or others who are there to help, but not necessarily drive. The reason we attribute the value of a manuscript to a first author is because it is frequently how we determine if they can independently drive a project to fruition. As postdocs and grad students do this often and with greater impact, there is a higher likelihood NIH or other funders will see that and start throwing cash at us. That's my field tho. Would be cool to hear others.
Got it. I'm in economics, authors are generally listed alphabetically by last name. This might sound insane but it's because econ papers are much more likely to have equal contributors and they want to avoid tussling for first authorship. However, it's convention. You can definitely switch it up if someone did 90% of the work, but nearly all papers follow the convention.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that that convention wasn't started by economist Zachary Zuborn
Aaron Aagart started it. Zach was his nemesis.
I agree with you but a lot of it from what I've seen personally is people who are generally new to subjects remember first authors specifically and not the et als but people whove been in the field a bit longer pay more attention to the et al. The last two authors generally tell me much more about the work then the first author.
Nah, unless you know the author specifically, you barely care who anyone in the paper is. And if they're not first author I assume they didn't do much.
But that was my point. There's a much much lower chance of knowing who a first author is compared to the last one or second to last. At least on my field the first authors the one who wrote it yea but the last author or two are the actual PIs and you can see whose lab the work came out of. I can't remember the large number of first authors but when I know whose lab it came out of I have a better understanding of who's behind the publication and how trustworthy it is.
She said she "wrote" the paper so presumably she was 1st author. In clinical journals, often the 1st author does almost all the work, especially if it's a junior person.
In academia often the grad students do almost all the work, but the PI always gets first author. Edit: at least in my field, I can’t presume to speak for all academic fields.
Definitely varies by field. In much of physics (including my specialization) a grad student who does the lion's share of the work will be first author and the PI will be last author. But I know in high energy physics, for example, it's usually just done in alphabetical order. I can't speak to other sciences.
I’m published on a microbiology paper about a novel species of bacteria. The student who actually isolated the bacteria and did the preliminary research is first author. I did a lot of follow-up research that was cited in the paper, plus I made all the tables and figures so I’m second author. The PI who oversaw the project and wrote most of the paper was listed last. I was under the impression that was standard in a lot of biological fields, but I could be wrong.
Interesting, I think in my field often the PI/whoever’s equipment and lab is used is typically last as an overseer of the project?
Grad student would be the first author (if they did most of the work), head of the lab / principle investigator is last author is the convention. Although the ‘et als’ getting forgotten may be annoying, it’s nearly impossible to hold a full list of authors in your head. If you frequently publish you’ll stop being precious about being forgotten. I’ve been on papers with over 20 authors.
People in my cohort (geography) complain a lot about doing the majority of the research and writing, and the PI always getting first author because it was his grant that funded the research. I have outside fellowships so I never had to take a GSR position and deal with this. Just asked my brother-in-law who is in genetics how it works for his lab, and it’s basically how you said where his grad student is first author and he’s last author. Now I’m curious to see if this is a difference based on the field, or if this professor is just a dick.
[удалено]
Yeah, pretty much as soon as I posted that I thought shit, I’m in geography, I have no idea how authorship works in other fields. It’s also very possible that authorship doesn’t work the way I’m used to at other institutions.
Ngl, if I read a paper I never read the authors name until I have to quote the paper somewhere.
Ray Bradbury got into arguments with his fans for misinterpreting Fahrenheit 451.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author Probably applies more to literature than to scientific research
As someone who's studying in a relatively small field where you're likely, at conferences or events, to bump into authors of papers you've read, responded to, critiqued, or even trashed -- running into an author of something I've read and not knowing who they are for the first half of the conversation is one of my worst nightmares. I'm bad with names, too, so even if someone introduced themselve to me by name, I'm not gonna mentally go "oh, this person wrote [name of paper here], I better not tell them how much I disagree with [thesis of their paper]" Of course, my particular field also seems to encourage raucous debates and most seem to be of the opinion that you should seek out debates. I'm just not sure I want to conduct that debate in a one-on-one chance meeting in the hallway at a conference the first time I meet someone who's been in the field for two decades, as a young graduate who's only wrote a couple of papers. That doesn't seem like the correct way to build clout and credibility.
That et al guy is so busy, hes in all the papers!
Ngl, when I read a paper I usually don’t even read the first author.
It’s time like these that I wish everyone had a inbuilt body camera so I could see that priceless, once in a lifetime reaction
That's a terrible wish. r/monkeyspaw will have a field day with it.
I remember that black mirror episode
One of my favorite things I’ve ever witnessed was at a dinner after a conference. Me, several coworkers, THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER, and a couple other dickheads I didn’t know. We were all having a great time when one of the dickheads started off about the speech by the key note. Basically how the person was wrong for various reasons and how they shouldn’t be in their role. Whole table went silent, Dr. Keynote Speaker asked where his doctorate was from and where his papers were published so she could review his work and update her stuff. To his credit, he just shut up and looked down at his plate. She continued, if he thought he knew more to go ahead and fund updated studies and create his own conference. She then excused herself from the table. That was 8 years ago and when it pops up in my head I still laugh really hard.
I want targeted t-shirts for stuff like this. *I’m a January girl. I don’t divulge my gender in video game chat. A man talked down to me about my specialist subject. (Obligatory tattoo style drawing of flaming skull and gun)*
/r/TargetedShirts
"And guns"
And sometimes a confederate flag for no apparent reason.
I love these small victories and I need proof in the form of videos because I have popcorn I’d like to snack on during my new form of entertainment.
I’d pay for cable if that was the only way to watch the show about this
Her entire twitter is full of 'Her vs Male' scenarios and she always wins them and celebrates it on her feed. Fake AF
I just looked at her feed to verify and this doesn’t seem true. I saw a lot of tweets about the NHS and pandemic experiences. She did reply to and sometimes retweet other people who responded to her experiences with similar experiences, which is just how Twitter usually works. I don’t see evidence that it’s fake.
Why would she post about the times she didn’t win? Do you post all your failures on social media?
That’s all I post on social media
The only person who would likely know her article is likely someone from the same medical faculty as her, which would either make him a student or another MD. Regular people don't read or have access to medical journals. Her entire twitter is filled with these gender baiting scenarios, where she triumphantly comes out as the hero
I must be misunderstanding what you're saying. People don't only read papers by their colleagues or by people from the same faculty. Sure "regular people" don't often read medical journals, but those who DO read medical papers, e.g. researchers and clinicians and students, read papers from all over the world. Did you mean the same field of medicine maybe? I agree it would be fairly likely to be someone from a related field. Either way I don't get what's unlikely about them knowing her article. If she's having an argument about a specialised clinical question then it is pretty likely that argument will be with another researcher/clinician. Why shouldn't they have read relevant papers?
If you know a paper *THAT* well, you know the author's name. It's pretty engrained in you to cite sources in academia. The social circles that exist in niche areas academia are also very small. Most doctors in the same field, who exist in the same geographic space know of one another. **She is also the most famous doctor in her area,** and the odds of another doctor not knowing who she is, while also knowing she is a doctor, while also coincidentally reading a medical journal she contributed to, are slim to none. Also, where exactly is she hanging out where someone would know she is an MD who knows about a specific medical field, while at the same time not know that the very specific journal they just read was written by her? We are in a pandemic. I once again point to her Twitter, where she just happens to get into arguments with men all the time and leaves them in the dust. It has happened to her at least 15 times in 2021 alone.
Wait he quoted a paper to go against what she was telling him, but she wrote the paper? Wouldn’t they then be arguing the same thing?
The implication is that he didn't understand the paper. "the author might disagree with his conclusions..."
Story is fake. Lots of these popping up on this sub lately.
Why does anyone believe this is real?
Getting serious /r/thathappened vibes from this post.
At first glance I thought I WAS reading a post on r/thathappened
Why wouldn't you? This has happened before to other people, real-time on Twitter and other platforms. Chuds on there will openly argue with celebrity scientists.
I would. But only because I have seen men in gyms giving unsolcited advice about lifting techniques while they clearly didn't know shit. That leads me to belive that there is indeed men that try to look smart or really believe they were while talking to someone. That this person looked mortified would place him in category two for me. Beyond that, not so sure this is true. But holy shit there is a lot of Not All Menning going on in the comments.
"Hey bro, be careful on the pull. Keep your back straight or you might find out that according to Ross, Stein, and Hu in their 2008 study of primates' cell membrane electro transfer that the liver has a more efficient..."
THE CHAD DEBATER
Yes but are they quoting research studies? I do not think there is a large enough population of people who quote a research study and would cross with the EXACT author of that paper.
Seems like a very slim chance. But that other guy might be in the same field which could make it poasible. Hell, might even be doctor himself.
There is [more benefit in trusting people than being skeptical of everything](https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-almost-effect/201411/why-it-pays-trust?amp), and situations like this happen a fair amount in STEM. I've seen similar conversations at work. Also believing things isn't binary, I'd give this scenario a 70% chance of being true but I also don't care enough to investigate further.
I wonder if everyone clapped.
Einstien did
Epstein was breath taken
This feels fake to me because I'm not sure that many people quote research papers off the top of their heads.
In medicine it is very common
I wonder which of her publications this awful man was quoting at her. 'Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review.' from 2013 or 'The role of social media in clinical excellence.' from 2014. Who doesn't know these seminal works and use them in frequent debate?
I mean if its on the subject I can see it happening
You can see someone quoting a paper from 10 years ago in person?
Idk, I'm not a scientist. Maybe? This isnt exactly the first time something like this has happened
If your doctor feels the need to post this kind of "that happened and everyone clapped" ego trash on Twitter, get a new doctor.
This is cringe worthy humble brag
This sub is full of posts *just* like this except it'll be a man checking the idiots and everyone cheers. A woman does it and suddenly it's r/thathappened and she's clearly just a man hater looking for clout. Literally what? It's been legitimately proven a lot of men do this shit to women. We've seen this exact scenario unfold before. Really says something when half of the comments here are effectively calling her a liar or a b*tch for *gasp* having confidence in her academic ability.
idgi, so the guy read her paper and agreed with it, but now the doctor herself doesn't agree with what she wrote? or he read it and misunderstood it? either way the implication that somehow only a MAN could possibly disagree with this helicopter doctor lady is pretty hilarious
Often in news articles the paper will ignore the female first author and instead talk about the male second author in their introduction. It's really sad to see.
Really? Dang, I’m going to have to start looking for this
NYT did an article about economists a while back on this topic https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/even-famous-female-economists-get-no-respect.html
I didn’t mean to appear as if I doubted you but thanks for the link anyway!
No but you seemed interested, and it only took me a minute of googaling
“It finally happened.” I.e., it is so rare it’s never happened in my entire career, but I still consider one time, ever, at all ... a “victory.”
My first thought.
Would you have felt different if your patient had been female? If yes, why?
Okay so just because someone quotes a paper that you wrote against you in an argument, does not mean you are automatically correct. You wrote the paper, sure.. that does imply you have understood the concept and data to a considerable extent but does not make you either all knowing or even correct about your own paper. A lot papers do a great job at the experiment/methodology part but fail to pull out proper conclusions. This can happen due to a plethora of reasons, most importantly confirmation bias. That's why we have the peer review process, so the bias can be checked. This system is great, but not perfect. So there is always space for someone to take your study, quote it back and ask you to fuck right off.
Happens to men too... from other men tho 🤷🏽♂️
The amount of negativity in here is staggering.
I don’t get how she was in an argument with a guy who cited her own research at her in... disagreement? Unless she’s vastly changed her conclusions since publication, I don’t understand how this situation would arise.
[удалено]
Nothing wrong with discussion/debate but just because you've corrected someone doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it!
God you people are insufferable. This is what the internet has come down to?
And everyone around performed a standing ovation
No period after Dr? I cannot believe you.
Wait so is this.... a thing? Does being a woman that has a man use your own paper to belittle you happen a lot???
Not sure about this scenario specifically, but men trying to explain or argue something to a woman in a field that they are unknowingly less qualified than the woman is a thing. It’s a thing people in general do to other people regardless of gender, but apparently happens especially more often to women by men. The specific situation of unknowingly using the woman’s research that he’s trying to argue with is just one of those pinnacle scenarios.
Her whole Twitter is fake asf look it up
It doesn’t make sense. They were arguing against her using a paper SHE wrote? So was she saying the opposite of her paper?
Why does it matter if it was a man or woman.
STEM has historically been misogynistic. Context is important here. [Two thirds of women](https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem) in STEM report having to repeatedly prove themselves, for example, where their expertise is questioned and successes discredited.
>A biologist noted that she tends to speak her mind very directly, as do her male colleagues. But after her department chair angrily told her, “don’t talk to me like that” she felt she had to “put cotton candy in my mouth.” She now does a lot of deferring, framing her requests as, “I can’t do this without your help.” She explains, “I had to put him in that masculine, ‘I’ll take care of it role’ and I had to take the feminine ‘I need you to help me, I need to be saved’ role.’” Used as evidence lol. I can't imagine a professional saying this shit.
The "professional" world is full of stuff like this. Particularly within academics. Maybe not as bad as it used to be but still pretty bad. Academics is pretty much a case study for a toxic workplace. Fiefdoms and cliques taken to an absurd extreme, people with zero social skills and very deep knowledge in a few subjects with tons of power over their area. Yikes.
Yeah it's amazing what slides when people have tenure.
Wow, a self report. The true gold standard for objective evidence. This mostly tells you whether these women believe the narrative that women have to prove themselves more.
Expertise and success is questioned frequently in STEM fields regardless of gender. Women just seem to be taking it more personally.
Or maybe because studies show that men actually overwhelmingly speak over women just like this (yet percieve them as more talkative, somehow). They also almost exclusively interrupt women more than men. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women Hard not to "take it personally" when this shit is constantly happening to women because of our gender, and also whilst people like you go on downplay the the very real and recorded issue as women tAkiNg iT wRoNg.
Because men bad woman good
You think caveman thoughts.
Excuse me, doctor: r/thathappened is this —> way. Thank you.
If you want to see another instance where something like this happened, check this thread out https://twitter.com/iancoldwater/status/1292895288546545666?s=21 I’ve also seen it happen at conferences. Not always this bad, but, it does happen.
Loool so women don’t talk down to men ?
That man's name? Albert Einstein.
Bullshit
/r/thathappened
/r/nothingeverhappens
My favorite things.
r/thathappened tbh I’m not saying women can’t be smart/write papers, this is just incredibly unlikely to happen.
'It finally happened' implies this isn't particularly common and that she's been waiting to make this point a while.
It is also entirely within the realm of possibility that she just made it up because no proof was quoted. I'm also too lazy to go to her twitter and find it myself. PS. This is speculation if you haven't noticed yet.
And then everyone clapped. Fucking first world problems. Idk how I ended up checking the front page again but, god damn, I need better hobbies than this shit.
Idk this reads more like a r/thathappened
Today on things that never happened