Timeline for Can someone else claim that their name should be on our paper because they have been working on the same problem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2022 at 16:28 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @CodyGray if only it were that simple. My point is that if you give an explanation N times and then refuse to engage further, for any value of N greater than 0, the type of person I was referring to will come away very angry because in their mind you gave them N completely invalid explanations, each one more invalid and dishonest than the previous one, and then abruptly cut off the debate, probably because you couldn’t face their overwhelmingly convincing rebuttal arguments. N=0 is the only value that avoids this effect. This has been my experience at least. | |
| Mar 5, 2022 at 12:03 | comment | added | Cody Gray | The "trap" is avoided by giving the reason once, and then refusing to engage further. That way, you educate someone who honestly doesn't know better (which is, sadly, possible), without falling victim to any traps, help-vampirism, or extended discussions. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 18:27 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | +1 to Dan's point above. In fact, these comments present a fair example of the possible give-reasons trap. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 16:02 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @Neinstein there is a type of person who won’t take no for an answer, and offer objections to any explanation you offer them, requiring you to clarify your explanation, which they will then refute again, and so on ad infinitum. Arguing with them is exhausting and pointless. After you go through this a few times you learn that in some situations just saying “no” without giving any opening for debate is the best way forward, for both sides. This is one of those situations IMO. But if OP wants to give an explanation and see where that takes them, then sure, they’re not risking very much. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 15:48 | comment | added | Neinstein | @DanRomik I see no harm in including a sentence of explanation here, while I do see possible harm in omitting it. Why do you still prefer the latter? | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 10:56 | comment | added | EarlGrey | @gib they understand enough to think "two wrongs makes one right". A clear no will stop their brain&heart wandering into the realms of unethical things. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 9:24 | comment | added | gib | @mcalex Yes that part does look suspicious, but they are a student so I still think they probably don't understand the issues. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 9:21 | comment | added | gib | @Dan Romik It wasn't a straw man argument, it was a general statement, just intended to imply that I think OP should be helpful to the other person, even if they do not have a professional responsibility to do so. I stick to what I said in my first comment. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 4:12 | comment | added | mcalex | @gib >>probably doesn't understand ... "in return, I offer you an author spot on my paper" Yep, the other student understands. | |
| Mar 3, 2022 at 2:12 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @gib sure, and if people didn’t write comments that contain an obvious straw man fallacy, the world would be a better place. It’s pretty clear I wasn’t advocating for “only helping others when you had a professional responsibility to do so”. That’s your interpretation, which I reject. | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 22:02 | comment | added | gib | The best way to help the person in this case would be to tell them the reason, which would only take a few seconds. If people only helped others when they had a professional responsibility to do so, the world would be a much worse place. | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 19:34 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @gib sometimes the best way to help someone understand something is to let them think about it and figure it out for themselves. Regardless, OP has no responsibility to help the other person understand anything. | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 18:18 | comment | added | gib | But the person making the request is a student and probably doesn't understand that it is unreasonable | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 17:05 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @gib when the request is very unreasonable (as this one clearly is) it is often better not to explain the reason for the “no”. That is a key point of the “no is a complete sentence” principle. | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 16:58 | comment | added | gib | I think it would be better to explain why you are saying no - as Buffy said, the reason is that the other person didn't contribute - rather than just saying "no" on its own or "I am not interested in adding you." | |
| Mar 2, 2022 at 15:56 | history | answered | Dan Romik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |