Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. All academic fraud shoukd be, because there's a ton of money that comes with PhDs and academic citations
    486
  2. Historian here: I personally outed on academic paper as a fraud, but the journal in question straight up ignored me.
    82
  3. It goes to literally every competive field that the top handful get stupidly rich, even videogames and journalism. It always ends up just selling a power fantasy to the masses.
    62
  4. The incentive for peer review is to read the abstract, make suggestions for improvement, and get the street cred for involvement
    45
  5. @DeltaDaedalus  the Liberians were loaning each other money, they just don't have professional banks
    19
  6. [Laughs in Hindenburg Research]
    17
  7. That's like compensation consultants. They are well paid with the incentive to do nothing important, make minor recommendations and watch the drama unfold
    17
  8.  @Living_End  Even so, it didn't make them richer despite literal free money
    12
  9. Or just criminalize it as fraud. Technically no new laws are needed, as anyone can reasonably expect financial gain from getting published
    11
  10. A lot of them are straight up lying to avoid suspicion. Even if they aren't fraudsters, they want to be above suspicion
    11
  11. Proving academic fraud is difficult, though. Often what they're lying about are questions that science itself hasn't answered yet.
    10
  12. Having met many poor people, I can say definitely that they are all either too young to get out of poverty or they spend their money stupidly. I've met several people who spend their checks within a day of getting it
    9
  13. Can be. Depends on university and whether they were too trusting or just lazy
    8
  14. They spent tens of millions and had low four digit participants. That's better than 90% of studies and as good as anyone can get.
    8
  15. Also, a total waste of government money
    8
  16. Even without fraud that's definitely a shitty workplace
    7
  17. I can honestly say I was never fooled by the draw of prestigious colleges. No one I ever met thought you coukd get better degrees by paying 10x the amount of money. What I should have known is that the only people who are willing to go through that garbage are rich kids with more money than sense and scammers participating in a pyramid scheme.
    7
  18.  @DJVARAO  Not always. Max Plank didn't live long enough to see most of his work lead to real world inventions.
    6
  19. I think what they were trying to argue was that morality goes out the window when careers are involved... Kinda like Harvard.
    6
  20. Psychology is what gave us the term "psychobabble." Guess
    5
  21. Lose the hyperbole
    5
  22. There's a clickbait physicist on YouTube named Sabine who brought up that nonsense as her excuse why she dropped out of a PhD program. Not sure what the real reason is
    4
  23. You ain't going anywhere, Greedo
    3
  24. His opinion is irrelevant
    3
  25.  @Hexanitrobenzene  ha. You know the Liberians eat their enemies, right?
    3
  26. Historian here: AI would have no idea what I was talking about and spit out critiques that often have nothing to do with what I'm writing about. Just like the average peer reviewer
    3
  27. Some people would just be a bum
    3
  28. But that is also a form of fraud since prof's name is attached to work they didn't do
    2
  29. Because it says what we want to hear
    2
  30. Work ethic isn't genetic, it's a learned behavior
    2
  31. We need to demonitize it. No grants, no government jobs, no subsidies, no FAFSA loans. If you have something to sell you can patent it.
    2
  32. That's just fraud/embezzlement
    2
  33.  @rika8484  but you also wouldn't meet most definitions of poor
    2
  34. Lose the clickbait. We all know who the Sacklers are
    2
  35.  @UncleKennysPlace  The shitty netflix documentary which this appears to be based on them made them all look like melodrama villains. They were the baddest drug dealers, nothing more
    2
  36. Proving the fraud would be very difficult
    2
  37. Many alleged science deniers never even deny anything they simply have an opinion that egotistical bastards hate
    1
  38. Liar
    1
  39. Especially when you're looking at low-impact journals. Often there is simply no peer review at all, and I have found published articles that contradict themselves in key places as well as dismiss all relevant data with a literal conspiracy theory
    1
  40.  @ecocodex4431  you spend your money stupidly, Greedo
    1
  41. Well, there is the corporate world, but they also have fraudsters targeting Wall Street and specific classes of consumers. Government programs tend to have expensive programs that move at a snail's pace because the fraudsters will find excuses to cause delays because they don't want their programs to ever end. Just a different coat of paint on the same old junk.
    1
  42. The only rule is any metric used to measure human behavior is bull because humans will game the metric.
    1
  43. That will more than likely end soon, and the Argentine government is dirty as all hell. They once stole a whole refinery
    1
  44. Not really. There's all sorts of research papers that are published but are neither used nor read because their purpose was to get some chump a job.
    1
  45. More than we trust you
    1
  46. Shut up
    1
  47. All the studies that might impact current politics
    1
  48. He didn't f*cking say that, acchole. The implication is the results are skewed by bums and underachievers. I have met many people who spend everything within days of getting it even though they're in default on bills. With that approach to money, it doesn't matter what you're getting, you're going to be poor
    1
  49. Not really. There were 500 idiots just like this that failed
    1
  50. Historian here: We don't have an incentive to publish surprising results. For instance, one submission I sent was rejected unread because I refused to say that a particular battle was part of a wider conflict between "white men" against "indigenous peoples" because it was simply not so (the battle was between US cavalrymen and unidentified Indians in Mexican service).
    1