When does theory become fact?

[Thief]

Does my eternal salvation depend upon those other doors?

Sure does...try an op about opening doors.....let me know.

 

[Thief]

To translate and paraphrase the German classical historian Joël: one can immerse himself in this problem for many years, but can at the end only say what Socrates admitted himself- we know that we know nothing.

If you share that slanted formula.....then you are the one that knows nothing.

I can let you have that stance.

 

[Straw Dog]

Sure does...try an op about opening doors.....let me know.

Sounds like a lot of excessive energy and work opening all of those doors. I must just be hellbound. What can I do?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you share that slanted formula.....then you are the one that knows nothing.

I can let you have that stance.

πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ’ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν
οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ’ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι

 

[Thief]

Sounds like a lot of excessive energy and work opening all of those doors. I must just be hellbound. What can I do?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This puts you where you deserve to be.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I will say that I've looked at my endorsements and they're a joke.

I recently (after this your post) returned to the site to continue to answer questions as a distraction for me. I have, as always, added no publications exceptiong those few that were from my undergrad years. In the time since you posted your reply, the answers I've provided (as that is all I've provided) have resulted in several hundred endorsements in fields that are only related to those I addressed in my answers. Now, I am not saying that for the most part the whole scoring method used by researchgate is a joke, but it is primarily so because of the adjustments made to scores based upon publications or some function thereof, which is why I have never included more than 4 at a time.

I didn't change any publications since even before this thread. Yet merely by answering questions I have both increased the number of skills and the quantity of the skills I've been endorsed for. In fact, my score is over the 90th percentile merely because I've answered questions other researchers asked.

Granting your elitist and condescending attitude without the but the faintest hint there lies substance to this, and given you knowledge of the dynamics and quantitative values we find in researchgate, how would you explain this?

That is, you have looked at your publications and your endorsements and rightly determined that the relationship is a joke. I have deliberately never provided my publications above at most 4 at a time and rarely have changed them, yet without changing those I gave over 2 years ago I have found, since your post, that my answers to questions have more than doubled my endorsements, how do you incorporate such results into the "model" you outline above?

 

[Sapiens]

I recently (after this your post) returned to the site to continue to answer questions as a distraction for me. I have, as always, added no publications exceptiong those few that were from my undergrad years. In the time since you posted your reply, the answers I've provided (as that is all I've provided) have resulted in several hundred endorsements in fields that are only related to those I addressed in my answers. Now, I am not saying that for the most part the whole scoring method used by researchgate is a joke, but it is primarily so because of the adjustments made to scores based upon publications or some function thereof, which is why I have never included more than 4 at a time.

I don't know about you, but I have found that "endorsements" that I have received are often only marginally related to things I have done or fields that I have mastered. These tend to be from what appears to be people who do not really know me (or only know of me by reputation and publications), make assumptions and either are currying favor or looking from me to reciprocate and join a mutual admiration society. Perhaps your experience is different.

I didn't change any publications since even before this thread. Yet merely by answering questions I have both increased the number of skills and the quantity of the skills I've been endorsed for. In fact, my score is over the 90th percentile merely because I've answered questions other researchers asked.

Granting your elitist and condescending attitude without the but the faintest hint there lies substance to this, and given you knowledge of the dynamics and quantitative values we find in researchgate, how would you explain this?

As I observed, I'd guess that the endorsements don't mean a whole hell of a lot.

That is, you have looked at your publications and your endorsements and rightly determined that the relationship is a joke.

Yup.

I have deliberately never provided my publications above at most 4 at a time and rarely have changed them, yet without changing those I gave over 2 years ago I have found, since your post, that my answers to questions have more than doubled my endorsements, how do you incorporate such results into the "model" you outline above?

As I explained above.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know about you, but I have found that "endorsements" that I have received are often only marginally related to things I have done or fields that I have mastered.

And how many questions have you answered? That was my point: endorsements are more accurate when one does almost nothing (don't accept followers, don't provide publications, etc.) but instead answer questions and answer a lot of them. During the periods I have stopped this, I receive few endorsements and they are most likely to have little or no relationship with what I actually do. The opposite is true when I have returned and answered questions again. This is reflected, too, in how my total score is made-up:

3% of my score is from publications, while the rest is from the 300+ answers I've given.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Why not start a thread about your experience and qualifications - rather than bring them up on so many other threads?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Why not start a thread about your experience and qualifications - rather than bring them up on so many other threads?

Because this is only of interest to me for the same reason I set it up the way I did: network analysis. As with this discussion board, researchgate provides me with data to study networks from a variety of perspectives. That score, for example, while largely useless in practice, is useful in my models and if my models are too off than this is a problem. For example, if I haven't adequately defined the parameters that should predict a score such as number of publications, the type of publication (sometimes including, usually as a separate parameter if included, levels for the impact of the publication source), number of followers, number of followed, number of questions, number of answers, etc., then my approach fails. While this doesn't matter for the same reasons it would were it not just to develop or study techniques, if I'm wrong then when I want to use them I will be using an approach that isn't as good as I think.

As, so far as I know, there is only one other person on the same site, there is no point in starting a thread about my models when all I am interested in is whether or not I have an outlier, a bad model, or an accurate model because the other member fits as into it as I think: receiving endorsements without contributing to the network by the routes that tend to make the endorsements more accurate.

It's more complicated than that, but the above is simple enough for an answer if not for a good explanation.