Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Aella: Sex Work, OnlyFans, Porn, Escorting, Dating, and Human Sexuality | Lex Fridman Podcast #358" video.

This is the most hilarious interview I've seen on this channel yet.
5
Nope, there are very big reasons to do so, because unlike YouTube, which is a free platform, a scientific venue is a publisher. Your work is reviewed and then judged by a board of editor. And those disappointing quality of those articles reflect the competency of board of editor. Even the most esteemed ones of any business, there are full of holes inside of them. Massive holes, and people just follow the game because that's the game. Try doing real science, you'll see. Most of those articles are extremely useless. One can post their methodology and work online for everybody to see, but once you've submitted yourself for review, you've put yourself into the situation where as if you're begging for the board approval. The board can very much be wrong, they're humans and humans make mistakes, and those journals always make a lot of mistakes. Once you've started doing it, you'll understand. If you don't understand that designed vagueness in the industry, you're not doing it properly. Real science stands whether it is published by a magazine, a tabloid, a journal or even on a website. Show some respect. The scientific industry works like this, a researcher send a paper to journal where his contacts are editors, and then such journal is ranked by another one of his contacts. It's a gigantic circle of corruption. It's like investment banking but with more complicated issues and a higher proclaimed ethical stance. Now within such circle of corruption, sometimes a miracle can occur. However, there are also sometimes notable results, not yet to the levels of miracles are ignored. Once you've published inside an article, you can't post it for free.
2
What kind of video though?
2
@careneh33 And that's exactly why you're a fraud. You justify your science not by your methodology, not by the validity of it, not by the result it got, but because you got them in publications. If your journal is open access, they're probably not that high of a quality. There are very few high quality open access journal. Quality over quantitiy. Overwhelming majority of high impact factor journals are not open access. So I guess that you published in mostly non prestigious journals, which defeats the entire purpose of publishing it in a journal at all. Why would you submit it to a journal if the journal is not high quality? You must be a rookie or you have bad scientific training, not all journals are the same, not all scientific venues are the same, not even all scientific field are the same. Some are incredibly more prestigious than another and I'm speaking from actual experience that even the most prestigious of them all are filled with inner circle influence. If you're not aware of this fact, maybe there's an even bigger problem, that your field is not really scientific field, not a natural science field. But your field is something of a make belief field, like psychology, or tourism, or economy. Social sciences or make belief sciences, poor discipline. Which are fine, but unfortunately when I say not all science are the same, I specifically means that kind of science. The fraudulent science. So exactly what kind of scientific field are you in that you think that there are no fraud? Which is nearly impossible because people who submitted to prestigious journals are either editors themselves, had their contacts or mentors as editors on those journals. In my field, mechanics and electronics, that's inevitable.
1
@careneh33 I'm not on any editorial boards. My professors are on a few. So again, what kind of scientific field are you in?
1
@careneh33 And what is that field? Anyone can do double blind but there's no prevention of outside communication. The novelty features are usually distinctive to each research group. So what is your field again?
1
@careneh33 Does that field has a real name or you make up the field and it's characteristics?
1
@careneh33 Again, what is that field? Now you proudly claim moral superiority so what is this superior field? Or is it you can't say because you know that your claim will be easily proven wrong?
1
@careneh33 It does have some correlation an overwhelming majority of the time. Maybe you're a special case. Most likely not but maybe I'm wrong. Saying that one's field doesn't reflect ability is like saying that one's job doesn't reflect their ability. Have some respect, pal. I'm not saying that you absolutely must be scientifically less literate. But I'm saying that if you don't understand the corruption within the field, you most likely are scientifically less literate. Nothing personal.
1
@careneh33 No, an okay journal is not an okay choice. Don't know where you get such line of thoughts but there's no such thing as striving for okay in the academic world. Have some standards, will ya? Look, of you're living in some kind of fantasy where you think more articles in mediocre journals gives you more experience than someone who only publish in prestigious journals, you're delusional. Keep it real, homie. You don't need affiliation of any kind to understand the arguments behind an article, but an affiliation can easily lowers the standards of judgement and makes the approval process more prone to mistakes. Show some respect, darling. You don't publish in the most prestigious journals, you don't dare to name your scientific field. For you to stand out and vouch for the credibility of scientific publication is quite sad. Whatever peer-reviewed process you're talking about in your field, you're just a chump, try to get to the big boys league, will you? I might have published less articles than you, but I can most likely guarantee that all of them have higher quality than yours, more rigorous methodology in a tougher field. Quality over quantity. Keep up with the time. Exactly what is your scientific field? Gender studies?
1
@careneh33 But again, goes back to the original Fridman comment. Code is code, data is data, articles being published in prestigious journals or not do not change their scientific nature. Code is code, data is data. The more transparency there is in those things, the better. However, if you're going the route of scientific journals that are good and non peer reviewed is bad, then you need to realize how much corruption there are within even the most prestigious journals out there. So your argument makes no sense no matter what. Within all the top journals, there are inner circle influences, a guy almost fake his way to a Nobel Prize called Jan Schon, he can only do this because of the lowering standard process that happens then and till this day. So I don't know where this delusion of yours come from to say that you are good and pure with high standards despite reality says otherwise. Keep it real, homie.
1
@careneh33 No, this isn't straw manning, darling. This is real life experiences that you know nothing about. Most scientists are frauds. If you really understand the nature of these things, you'll be shocked to realize how many of these articles are just articles for articles sake. To pump up the numbers of publications and fill their quotas. By default, if over 50% of anything is something, you can categorize them, I'm fairly certain, very certain that more than 50% of scientists are frauds, number one is that there are way too many fraudulent field of studies that follow little rigorous discipline. Most notably can be your field of studies. And the next thing is the distribution of excellent individuals. A guy graduating last out of med school is still a doctor, not a really good one but still a doctor. The same applies with any other kind of professions. Most teachers aren't really good teachers, and most scientists aren't really good scientists. Incompetence is just unintentional fraud So go learn some math and have some class.
1