The alt-right guide to fielding conference questions













After watching this interview between
BBC Newsnight's Evan Davies and Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to Donald
Trump, I realised I'd been handling conference questions all wrong. Gorka,
who is a former editor of Breitbart News, gives a virtuoso performance that
illustrates every trick in the book for coming out on top in an interview:
smear the questioner, distract from the question, deny the premises, and
question the motives behind a difficult question. Do everything, in fact,
except give a straight answer. Here's what a conference Q and A session might
look like if we all mastered these useful techniques.






ED: Dr Gorka, you claim that
you can improve children's reading development using a set of motor exercises.
But the data you showed on slide 3 don't seem to show that.





SG: That question is typical
of the kind of bias from people working at British Universities. You
seem hell-bent on discrediting any view that doesn't agree with your own
preconceived position.





ED: Er, no. I just wondered
about slide 3. Is the difference between those two numbers statistically significant?





SG: Why are people like you
so obsessed with trivial details? Here we are showing marvellous improvements
in children's reading, and all you can do is to pick away at a minor point.





ED: Well, you could answer
the question? Are those numbers significantly different?





SG: It's not as if you and
your colleagues have any expertise in statistics. The last talk by your
colleague Dr Smith was full of mistakes. She actually did a parametric test in
a situation that called for a nonparametric test.





ED: But can we get back to
the question of whether your intervention had a significant effect.





SG: Of course it did. It's
an enormous effect. And that's only part of the data. I've got lots of other numbers that I haven't shown here. And if we got to slide 3, just look
at those bars: the red one is much higher than the blue one.





ED: But where are the error
bars?





SG: That's just typical of
you. Always on the attack. Look at the language you are using. I show you all
the results in a nice bar chart, and all you can do is talk about error. Don't
you ever think of anything else?





ED: Well, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with that question, so let me try another one. Your co-author, Dr
Trump, said that the children in your study all had dyslexia, whereas in your
talk you said they covered the whole range of reading ability. That's rather
confusing. Can you tell us which version is correct?





SG: There you go again.
Always trying to pick holes in everything we do. Seems you're just jealous
because your own reading programs don't have anything like this effect.





ED: But don't you think it
discredits your study if you can't give a straight answer to a simple question?





SG: So this is what we get,
ladies and gentleman. All the time. Fake challenges and attempts to discredit
us.





ED: Well, it's a
straightforward question. Were they dyslexic or not?





SG: Some of them were, and
some of them weren't.





ED: How many? Dr Trump said
all of them were dyslexic.





SG: You'll have to ask him. I've
got parents falling over themselves to get their children enrolled, and I really
don't have time for this kind of biased questioning.





Chair: Thank you Dr Gorka.
We have no more time for questions.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Open code: not just data and publications

Image
I had a nice exchange on Twitter this week. Nick Fay had found a tweet I had posted over a year ago, asking for advice on an arcane aspect of statistical analysis: I'd had some replies, but they hadn’t really helped. In the end, I’d worked out that there was an error in the stats bible written by Rand Wilcox, which was leading me astray. Once I’d overcome that, I managed to get the analysis to work. It was clear Nick was now having the same problem and going round in exactly the same circles I had experienced. My initial thought was that I could probably dig out the analysis and reconstruct what I’d done, but my heart sank at the prospect. However, then I had a cheerful thought. I had deposited the analysis scripts for my project on the Open Science Framework, here . I checked, and the script was pretty well annotated, and as a bonus you got a script showing you how to make a nice swarm plot. This experience comes hard on the heels of another interaction, this time around a paper ...
Read more

Data from the phonics screen: a worryingly abnormal distribution

Image
The new phonics screening test for children has been highly controversial.   I’ve been surprised at the amount of hostility engendered by the idea of testing children’s knowledge of how letters and sounds go together. There’s plenty of evidence that this is a foundational skill for reading, and poor ability to do phonics is a good predictor of later reading problems. So while I can see there are aspects of the implementation of the phonics screen that could be improved,   I don’t buy arguments that it will ‘confuse’ children, or prevent them reading for meaning. I discovered today that some early data on the phonics screen had recently been published by the Department for Education , and my inner nerd was immediately stimulated to visit the website and download the tables.   What I found was both surprising and disturbing. Most of the results are presented in terms of proportions of children ‘passing’ the screen, i.e. scoring 32 or more. There are tables showing how ...
Read more

Has the Society for Neuroscience lost its way?

Image
The tl;dr version: The Society for Neuroscience (SfN) makes humongous amounts of money from its journal and meetings, but spends very little on helping its members, while treating overseas researchers with indifference bordering on disdain. I first became concerned about the Society for Neuroscience back in 2010 when I submitted a paper to the Journal of Neuroscience. The instructions to authors explained that there was a submission fee (at the time about $50). Although I 'd never come across such a practice before, I reckoned it was not a large sum, and so went ahead. The Instructions for Authors explained that there was a veto on citation of unpublished work. I wanted to cite a paper of mine that had been ‘accepted in principle’ but needed minor changes, and I explained this in my cover letter. Nevertheless, the paper was desk-rejected because of this violation. A week later, after the other paper was accepted, I updated the manuscript and resubmitted it, but was told that I had ...
Read more