I wonder if Howard is actually suffering from a diagnosable psychotic disorder. He appears to be delusional - and not as a figure of speech. Delusional in the clinical sense.
Hearing Howard’s words, juxtaposed to what was written to him, is pretty bonkers. He thinks he’s a genius that can reinvent math, and he gets super defensive at any polite and candid feedback of his bizarre work.
l just completed my psych rotation, if this case came up on an exam id say type B personality disorder (narcissistic type) combined with delusional disorder (primarily grandiose) he 100% has a mental health disorder. its possible he's bipolar too (type 2)
I know diagnosing someone off random internet videos is a silly thing to do, but every time this dude pops up in the news, my brain jumps to “there is something significant in the DSM for this guy.”
Not a fan of Neil, but this is a really respectful way in into teaching someone how scientific studies work.
Yeah, I’m still on the fence with what happened after the me-too stuff. Some women spoke out against him, but several independent investigations were not able to substantiate the claims. And after different organizations did their own investigations, they all came to the same conclusions, and let him keep his projects and jobs.
Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.
He’s also just a bit of a prick regardless. There are so many more entertaining science personalities that don’t act pompous as fuck.
I think "prick" is a bit far. I don't think I've ever gotten any malice or ill-intent from him. He's just a very blunt speaker who may not immediately recognize the social repercussions of what he's saying in the moment. I think he recognizes this and constantly apologizes for the way he speaks.
he has had some dickish moments but when you’re constantly talking publicly that’s pretty inevitable unless you’re a saint.
Not a fan of Joe Rogan but I did watch clips of his interview with Neil and prick definitely seemed like an appropriate term for him after that. Watch the clips if you don’t believe me.
I watched them. There's nothing there that is aggressive at all. He very clearly laid out and explained the issues with the ideas put forth by the ideas in that paper, and explicitly said why he did it that way (that's how a colleague in science would note things), and further said if you're to be taken seriously, you should expect such feedback from peers who are reviewing your work. That's quite accurate.
What was your take on this that sounds negative?
He interrupted Joe constantly and came off as arrogant, condescending and abrasive.
Oh no...Joe Rogan gets interrupted by a certified genius in between idiotic thoughts.
Hmm, so you’re now arguing in bad faith, that took a turn. I’m officially out as you seem to think it’s OK to be rude and condescend if you’re a “certified genius”. I must be speaking with a certified genius here, I had no idea.
several independent investigations were not able to substantiate the claims.
Tyson was investigated by National Geographic and Fox to protect the shows they were producing starring him. I suppose the Natural History Museum looked into it enough to decide not to fire their star celebrity academic.
So the investigations had massive conflicts of interest actually. And none of them had an interest in his actual guilt. An none of them were victim advocates.
The accusations against Tyson are credible and they've never been properly investigated.
Apparently the museum used outside investigators, and Fox / Nat Geo used internal investigators.
It wouldn’t surprise me to have a media company’s bias being toward protecting their content investment. That person’s face is in every show set to run, rerun, and stream. A museum is kind of different. It’s the in-person exhibits that are the main draw, and a their bigger risk is probably the litigation from substantiated allegations.
I work in this risk / ethics space, and I’m not surprised that the museum was more motivated to look into the claims, as opposed to simply saying they looked into the claims.
And that said, I’m also just some rando on the internet.
does he even have shows any more? why bother if they weren’t going to use him again anyway?
It still comes off a bit douchey. He kept saying that his bluntness of the peer review would be th same as if it was a friend or colleague requesting a peer review. I didn't get the impression that Howard was a friend or a colleague and certainly did not request a peer review. Or even understand the process of a peer review for that matter.
With that said, I do find the video interesting from the perspective of a person that also doesn't know anything about a peer review.
Terrence sent his "paper" to NDT. Idk whether or not he was requesting a peer review but he spouts this stuff publicly constantly, he can't be upset that people are refuting him publicly.
I'm not saying Terrence has any legs to stand on, he doesn't.
I'm just saying it seems a little douchey to get a paper from someone that is in no way a colleague or friend and go to town on that paper. He should have treated it like an amateur that needs encouragement not a colleague that needs the hard truth.
He should have treated it like an amateur that needs encouragement not a colleague that needs the hard truth.
There is no way of saying "your fundamental method of understanding the world is faulty" in a way that someone won't describe as "douchey".
So we're in agreement that what he did was douchey.
There's many things he could have done that weren't douchey.
Sure. Just not while remaining honest and on topic.
There's a wide range of reactions that are not douchey while being both honest and on topic.
Cool. Give us one for Terry here.
Rather than giving an entire unsolicited peer review, I would just mention there were issues with the paper and offer a full peer review if he’s interested. It’s clear from the paper that Terence has no idea what the process of a peer review is, so maybe start by educating him on that.
Now, if that happened, or if Terrence sent the paper and asked for a full peer review, I would take back my comment. But based on this video, it didn’t feel like that’s what happened.
Talking about it hypothetically is a cop out.
It’s clear from the paper that Terence has no idea what the process of a peer review is, so maybe start by educating him on that.
By assuming he doesn't know what peer review is (something anyone can google) you have guaranteed that someone will find your response douchey. By not giving a peer review you have also been dismissive.
Hmm, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about at this point… I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. With only the context of Tyson’s video, I felt it was douchey.
Considering he has a reputation for being douchey in literally the same manner, but towards common people, it seemed like par for the course with him.
With only the context of Tyson’s video, I felt it was douchey.
Any honest, relevant response to Terrence Howard would be interpreted by someone as douchey.
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world