Jonne Arjoranta is a user on scholar.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

Jonne Arjoranta @jaranta@scholar.social

"Being conscious is not about being able to engage in rational thought or to use language, it is fundamentally about perceiving the world — and the self — in a way that ensures the survival of the organism in a world full of danger and opportunity."

ideas.ted.com/want-to-know-wha

I now have 3 different software for synchronizing files installed. Please send help.

I mostly follow recommendations from Effective Altruism, but as the story points out, I'm also a white guy with a philosophy degree - economist.com/international/20

Blog post about tech company platform use in academia Show more

Ugh. Game studies people: stop writing about Wittgenstein if you haven't read him. He didn't write about games, he wrote about language. Games were just an example.

A cool article about how exacting Fred Rogers was about the language used on his show so that it wouldn't confuse or accidentally mislead kids: theatlantic.com/family/archive

I especially love the examples given.

As someone who doesn't usually wear dresses to presentations, this was super useful.

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/art

My university website puts everything posted on a certain hashtag straight on the front page of the university. What kind of fun bot could I write to post on the front page?

Has to be fun, not intrusive or abusive.

Today at Jyväskylä, presenting our paper on how Twitter works as an arena for the scapegoat mechanism.

I’m always amazed and intrigued when new #psychology research fails to replicate things we thought we had understood. “The Marshmallow Test” has informed all sorts of pop psychology and yet here it is, being challenged by a failure to replicate. theatlantic.com/family/archive

I wrote about why Mastodon is growing so fast. Short version: sex workers and lolicon.

jonne.arjoranta.fi/2018/why-is

Occasionally you see how the peer review system has utterly failed: "few attempts have been made to define what a videogame exactly is". I can probably name a couple of dozen, including a book that does exactly what this paper does.

link.springer.com/article/10.1

"you are unlikely to convince fellow Psychologists without some f̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶d̶a̶t̶a̶ good experimental evidence. Economists may not pay attention if you do not proceed according to some widely-shared rules of r̶i̶t̶u̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶d̶
m̶a̶t̶h̶e̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ model-building. Historians will be less likely to take you seriously if your claims are not built on a̶n̶ e̶l̶e̶g̶a̶n̶t̶ p̶r̶o̶s̶e̶ s̶t̶y̶l̶e̶ mastery of a relevant archive. Sociologists may remain unconvinced if you do not b̶l̶a̶m̶e̶
n̶e̶o̶l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ blame neoliberalism."

kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/

12/12 manuscripts either in review or being published. Whew. I think I could nap for a couple of months now.

We meet again, journal with almost-but-not-quite standard citation format.

Today I got the first GDPR-inspired mail begging me to resubcribe to a newsletter I'm pretty sure I never subscribed to.

For #wip Wednesday - I'm trying out a new sort of #machinelearning algorithm. I've trained it to classify any given name as either a metal band or a My Little Pony. Anyone got names to try?
(Delightfully, it is 99% sure I am a pony)

\m/ Call for Fucking Papers \m/

Subject: Multilingual Metal: Sociocultural, Linguistic and Literary Perspectives on Heavy Metal Lyrics

linguistlist.org/issues/29/29-

What's the scholar.social take on pseudoscience and nonsense? I've now seen multiple instances of either bullshit[1] or pseudoscience being posted here.

[1] I mean 'bullshit' in the philosophical sense (Frankfurt 1986).