When I was teaching, I always clearly told the students my ideological bias on the first day of class and reminded them again whenever we got into normative discussions.
I'm surprised you, as an economist, wouldn't assume the rules merely convey the message that the benefits of financial disclosure are worth the costs while other kind of disclosure isn't.
Rules benefit from being bright lines and it's much easier to create those lines for financial disclosure. And there are a few donors -- particularly the DEA (at least in the 90s) -- whose grants really do seem to virtually guarantee a certain slant to the research. So there is benefit and not too much cost.
Regarding ideology, that's effectively disclosed via an academic's papers, speaking engagements and online presence while an effective rule for disclosure would be just an excuse for motivated attacks for non-disclosure (I think they're a socialist but they didn't say so). And even if you did get ideological disclosure what you really want to know is what their ideology was before studying these issues and that's even harder to identify on a form but easier to see in a publication record.
If you want to convince us that ideology would make sense to report give us a proposed rule for it. And how about a rule for reporting friends? Won't such a rule essentially chill any friendships across ideology if they might get printed?
I dont think COI is much of a driver there,simply adopting the ideology of judging people not as individuals but as member of a group based on race/gender/sexual orientation,and that the moral purpose of any political discourse is reducing inequalities with these groups,then not publishing research,cherry picking/manipulating data and obscuring the truth are the natural processes.You don't need government funding,social capital,prestige or even friends and family acceptance to justify these actions,you just lie because its the good thing a person does to improve the world,how a beauty pageant winner wishes for world peace or a christian lights a candle in church
in some academic areas (e.g., feminist and queer studies), its even worse than confirming hypotheses that suit your ideology; it's creating entire imaginary worlds.
Your arguments are strong for a broader disclosure of CoI that includes friends and ideology. But I think you underestimate the good the rules for financial disclosure are doing. The fact that financial influence is a relatively minor factor of corruption suggests to me that the rules are doing a good job, not that the rules are not needed.
Fascinating observation regarding Conflicts of Interest! We usually only “follow the money”, but currency is not just monetary, but may also be cultural/ ideological in nature and include aspects such as friendship and status.
Broadly speaking, I generally don't trust social sciences since they are too soft. The somewhat exception being the well estalished and politically-neutralish findings. The physical sciences are much much much more respectable, though not absolute.
As well as friends, also your enemies. I imagine some academics are more likely to publish results that prove their rival wrong. :D
I can't stop thinking:
Was the left-handed handshake in the AI image a result of the author's request, or a beautiful but subtle decision by our AI friends?
When I was teaching, I always clearly told the students my ideological bias on the first day of class and reminded them again whenever we got into normative discussions.
I'm surprised you, as an economist, wouldn't assume the rules merely convey the message that the benefits of financial disclosure are worth the costs while other kind of disclosure isn't.
Rules benefit from being bright lines and it's much easier to create those lines for financial disclosure. And there are a few donors -- particularly the DEA (at least in the 90s) -- whose grants really do seem to virtually guarantee a certain slant to the research. So there is benefit and not too much cost.
Regarding ideology, that's effectively disclosed via an academic's papers, speaking engagements and online presence while an effective rule for disclosure would be just an excuse for motivated attacks for non-disclosure (I think they're a socialist but they didn't say so). And even if you did get ideological disclosure what you really want to know is what their ideology was before studying these issues and that's even harder to identify on a form but easier to see in a publication record.
If you want to convince us that ideology would make sense to report give us a proposed rule for it. And how about a rule for reporting friends? Won't such a rule essentially chill any friendships across ideology if they might get printed?
"Citation needed" on this entire piece. Very strong statements, very little evidence.
What a fantastic piece.
The only way I can think to improve it is if it included a line saying “where people include their pronouns, they need to include their ideology.”
OTOH, anyone who published their pronouns has either revealed their ideology (most likely), or at minimum revealed the ideology of their friends…
I dont think COI is much of a driver there,simply adopting the ideology of judging people not as individuals but as member of a group based on race/gender/sexual orientation,and that the moral purpose of any political discourse is reducing inequalities with these groups,then not publishing research,cherry picking/manipulating data and obscuring the truth are the natural processes.You don't need government funding,social capital,prestige or even friends and family acceptance to justify these actions,you just lie because its the good thing a person does to improve the world,how a beauty pageant winner wishes for world peace or a christian lights a candle in church
in some academic areas (e.g., feminist and queer studies), its even worse than confirming hypotheses that suit your ideology; it's creating entire imaginary worlds.
Your arguments are strong for a broader disclosure of CoI that includes friends and ideology. But I think you underestimate the good the rules for financial disclosure are doing. The fact that financial influence is a relatively minor factor of corruption suggests to me that the rules are doing a good job, not that the rules are not needed.
It's a disease that the digital world is making worse. Humans are garbage, sorry, God's right. I hope the next life is better than this shit show.
Fascinating observation regarding Conflicts of Interest! We usually only “follow the money”, but currency is not just monetary, but may also be cultural/ ideological in nature and include aspects such as friendship and status.
Broadly speaking, I generally don't trust social sciences since they are too soft. The somewhat exception being the well estalished and politically-neutralish findings. The physical sciences are much much much more respectable, though not absolute.
Typo: political leanings not learnings