Was just reminded that the last paper rejection I got included a reviewer comment: "too much psychology for a software engineer audience."

[chemoelectric@masto.ai]

@grimalkina In fundamental physics you cannot find quality stuff at all in the ‘elite’ journals. There they publish only utter nonsense.

(I’m not a physicist, thank goodness. A retired computer programmer with an engineering education, but who dabbles in a few physics topics without publishing except from a soapbox. But I do subscribe to the ACM Digital Library!)

[chemoelectric@masto.ai]

@grimalkina I write code. I lace my code and READMEs with ‘psychological’ commentary. Lately it has been stuff about how, no, it is not R⁷RS Scheme that is reactionary, it is R⁶RS Scheme that was reactionary, because it rejected the SRFIs. I actually stick this stuff in my libraries because I think it explains a lot.

[chrisjrn@social.coop]

@grimalkina (remind me to encourage you to come to #NBPy next year )

[kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@grimalkina smells a lot like "too political".

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@grimalkina @KingmaYpe for sure. Hero culture.

[drgroftehauge@sigmoid.social]

@grimalkina I have a wonderful image in my mind of you with a tour guide hat and flag on a stick, showing psychologists around a conference. Half tour guide half David Attenborough maybe.

[internic@mathstodon.xyz]

@grimalkina I think software engineers underrate how often they are actually talking about psychology (or human behavioral science more generally). In my experience, it's a pretty significant proportion of the time.

[adrianh@mastodon.social]

@grimalkina Put it on the book jacket. Only half joking

[bjoreman@toot.cafe]

@grimalkina "You get the amount you need, not the amount you want."

[nedbat@hachyderm.io]

@grimalkina I did a whole PyCon keynote that was 90% psychology (and 10% typesetting history).

[grimalkina@mastodon.social]

@oscarjiminy @mahryekuh @ainmosni those are usually far less psych and far more pseudoscience to be honest. Plenty to blame UX for, and UX isn't psych.

[grillchen@brot.eus]

@grimalkina @oscarjiminy @mahryekuh @ainmosni friend worked at a newspaper in customer handling.

they had to do a 3 days course to "learn how to sell". it was by some pseudo science guru who sold "psychology".

the gist was every human is one of 4 animals (whales, sharks, owls, and dolphins).

screenshot of the website machine translated for laughs added. (original german side: https://www.tobias-beck.com/persoenlichkeitstest/)

studies? 0. sources? 0. any empiric approach? nah.
it is "trust me bro" and "customers who trust us".

not the truth prevails here, but what sounds good in some pitch meeting.

[davebauerart@mastodon.social]

@nedbat Oh what was that called, I need to watch it (is there a video?)

[nedbat@hachyderm.io]

@davebauerart There is! https://nedbatchelder.com/text/key23 I hope you like it.

[guillaumerossolini@infosec.exchange]

@grimalkina I’m quite convinced that software engineers welcome a variety of points of view, thanks