tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6918000786859735996..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Academic Blogging: Pros and ConsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-26902725590056594402009-04-06T20:35:00.000-04:002009-04-06T20:35:00.000-04:00Ha, neat, even backwards causation is no barrier t...Ha, neat, even backwards causation is no barrier to my powers of persuasion! ;-)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-29490863928749071802009-04-06T19:23:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:23:00.000-04:00I should add that it's more of a journal than a di...I should add that it's more of a journal than a discussion forum at this point, so you shouldn't feel any obligation to blogroll me. (I haven't even got a blogroll at the moment.)Featherless Bipedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207055312949249371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-26579433399332113862009-04-06T19:21:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:21:00.000-04:00Well, I'm persuaded. The pseudonym is useful for ...Well, I'm <A HREF="http://ozphilblog.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">persuaded</A>. The pseudonym is useful for getting rid of self-consciousness. I know I'm not really anonymous, in the sense that anybody who cares can pretty easily figure out who I am, and I'm certainly not saying anything that I wouldn't want my mom or my advisor reading. Still, I like being "The Wizard of Oz".Featherless Bipedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207055312949249371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-7083945854086666312009-03-25T07:59:00.000-04:002009-03-25T07:59:00.000-04:00I'm also lacking in experience of search committee...I'm also lacking in experience of search committees here, but I'm imagining that if one member of a committee doesn't like your blogging, that's enough to get you removed from the list of candidates. Using your numbers and assuming a search committee of 5, that means that roughly one half of all search committees will reject you for your blogging (a massive 5% loss of potential jobs). The asymmetry consists in the fact that it's more bad for one committee member to disapprove of you than it is good for one committee member to approve of you.<BR/><BR/>Neil,<BR/>That's a fair point. In fact, one might think that if your blog is not on your CV, the only people on a search committee who are likely to know about it are those already reading blogs, and who are therefore presumably more likely to be in favour of blogging. Things aren't quite this simple, but again, it's certainly something to bear in mind.Alex Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03836914221864280274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-69327134378928443362009-03-25T04:43:00.000-04:002009-03-25T04:43:00.000-04:00Well, I guess if only one of five search committee...Well, I guess if only one of five search committee members reads philosophy blogs, we could come pretty close to the original point.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-50550469790376021712009-03-23T12:15:00.000-04:002009-03-23T12:15:00.000-04:00(Though I should add: if the absolute net impact o...(Though I should add: if the absolute net impact of blogging on search committees is sufficiently low as to be negligible, then that would render the original objection moot. And, indeed, this seems plausible to me.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-41729021396563617972009-03-23T12:12:00.000-04:002009-03-23T12:12:00.000-04:00I don't know enough about search committees -- but...I don't know enough about search committees -- but do such details introduce any relevant asymmetry between the chances of swaying the committee in positive vs. negative directions? After all, it's the relative, not absolute, percentages that matter here.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-58934577925136799072009-03-23T11:31:00.000-04:002009-03-23T11:31:00.000-04:00"Notably, even if your blogging alienates more peo..."Notably, even if your blogging alienates more people than it impresses, base rate considerations suggest that it's still overwhelmingly likely to be beneficial on net."<BR/><BR/>This argument is nice, but I think that it may be wrong. Search commitees are not homogenous entities, and the likelihood is presumably that different people on a committee will be swayed for and against you for blogging.<BR/><BR/>This suggests that it may not be true that 2% of search committees will look favourably on blogging. 2% of people perhaps. But on a search committee of five, that means a 0.0000000032% chance of a search committee being unaniminously in favour of blogging. Things aren't that simple of course, but that's precisely my point: these numbers are misleading when we're talking about committees and not individuals.Alex Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03836914221864280274noreply@blogger.com