Abstract

Hot off the (academic) press

Within our research, we propose a new way to consider and approach this long-standing problem, which has remained unsolvable until we came across it. A few people have said some important things about it, but all of them have been wrong, some more than others. Some so blatantly wrong that we will rebuke them and their intelligence (if they can be said to have any), but with seemingly softspoken words and hard numbers, collected through quantitative methods and strong evidence. Mostly, this is a chance to respond to a recent article written by the authors who initially attacked our own view. We see this back and forth as an interaction lattice within a dynamic goal space, where diverse actors compete over material resources within complex socio-ecological environments. Further, we model this back and forth through Boolean networks, allowing us to get a novel perspective on the issue at hand. Within this context, we call our novel approach ‘petty academic frustration’, or PAF for short. Our novel approach reveals that there is much more research to be done in this particular area, which would increase our odds at funding, if funding agencies did in fact get the chance to read our paper, or even just this abstract. We propose that if other people followed this method, it could result in a paradigm shift towards our method being the dominant one, and funding streams adjusting to our own interests and aims. All of this is speculation.