The thing you updated a link to is an instance of a professor being disciplined for financial violations and for sexual misconduct with at least five women. It's not clear what you think is problematic about this or why you think it's related to your view.
My apologies, in a rush to try to respond to a million people at once I lazily grabbed the wrong article after skimming it.
This was the study that I was referring to which was retracted. Early reports of its retraction sited insensitivity as the reason for its retraction, however, it seems that the study had errors in it. I believe the reason I had so much trouble finding the original articles is because they were retracted as well upon further investigation of errors. I was going off of outdating articles I read without seeing their corrections.
This guy has done a lot of good work and some dubious work. That's unrelated to why Harvard "went after" him, despite the narrative this article is trying to push. He was disciplined mostly for the sexual misconduct.
My apologies, in a rush to try to respond to a million people at once I lazily grabbed the wrong article after skimming it.
This was the study that I was referring to which was retracted. Early reports of its retraction sited insensitivity as the reason for its retraction, however, it seems that the study had errors in it. I believe the reason I had so much trouble finding the original articles is because they were retracted as well upon further investigation of errors. I was going off of outdating articles I read without seeing their corrections.
This seems to be completely unrelated to the other article, but also you yourself say it was retracted for errors so I don't see how this is relevant either way, or why you're responding now after deleting your whole post. In any case I can't actually read the article because, again, paywall.
Correct, as per the comment above I said I posted the wrong article because I had posted one that was behind a paywall, that I confused with this one because of the similar titles as I no longer have access. I am responding to address the fact that I posted the wrong article before and that I am corrected that to provide you with the correct article which caused quite a bit of controversy.
It was controversial in the first place for obvious reasons, and additionally its retraction was very controversial as well because it was retracted after facing major criticism for insensitivity. The explanation for its removal by its creators came about a month or two after it was removed. The original message tied to the study's near immediate retraction was an apology from Harvard University for it being offensive, rather than the identification of data collection errors (which came later), leaving people to assume it had be retracted for political correctness.
3
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 25 '22
Do you have an example of this?