Lisa Starr

Edward L. Deci, 83, Dies; Found Self-Determination as a Key to Happiness

The NYT published a lovely memorial to my colleague Ed Deci. Anyone who knew Ed can tell you he was one-of-a kind; he truly lead a self-determined life.

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/s...

I used to use em dashes all the time in my writing and now I'm afraid to, lest I be appear bot-like. Now my writing is rife with semicolons and parentheses.

I understand why chatbot cheating happens but every time I read about it I want to gently remind everyone that the point of schoolwork is not for the submission to exist. Teachers are not just greedy for more essays or solved equations. The point is to do the work WITH YOUR OWN BRAIN, FOR LEARNING.

Edward Deci, pioneering psychologist who transformed thinking around human motivation, remembered University of Rochester psychologist Edward Deci cofounded the influential Self-Determination Theory.

Edward Deci, a pioneering psychologist who transformed how human motivation is understood through his work on self-determination theory and intrinsic rewards, passed away this month at age 83.

He spent his entire career at URochester, and was widely known as a generous mentor, advisor, and friend.

This is a moral stain on our nation.

Clearly the clinical psychology research community is centered around me

Trump Administration Live Updates: Officials Tied Tunnel Funds to Renaming Airport and Train Station for Trump

Can we pass a law against naming federal property for living people??? I know the founders never imagined a world where a sitting president would condition policy on his narcissistic needs for self-validation but here we are.

(all this said, I made the decision to decline all reviews during my sabbatical and also decline bc of bandwidth reasons sometimes, so no judgement. it's just too much!)

It seems like there's been a "learn to say no to things" movement (punchcards where if you say no 10x you get ice cream, etc.). We also need to teach people that there are limits to that and if you are going to participate in the system you have to help maintain it, even if the incentives suck.

It is also an ethical value that we need to collectively instill & embrace. People (esp younger gen) are getting better at declining excessive service demands, which is a good thing. But people at all career levels who don't review regularly but still submit to peer review journals are freeloaders.

I absolutely think there's training value. And, when I'm on search committees, I'm totally put off when ass't prof candidates only have a couple journals on their ad hoc review list, and conversely impressed when they have a huge number. But, it's hard to list number of REVIEWS, only # of JOURNALS.

Reviews (unfortunately) don’t help one’s cv or visibility much, in proportion to the considerable effort involved. That is what needs to change— add incentives (recognition for hard work/insights, or financial). Publons doesn’t cut it.

When I was a postdoc I was already getting too many reviews to handle. And, when I ask my students to co-review, 95% of the time they say no because of “low bandwidth.” I don’t think junior scholars need or appreciate doing reviews more than senior ones, nor should the burden get shifted to them.

🚨 Requesting help:

I am looking for an agent who can facilitate more speaking gigs, podcast appearances, and interviews with journalists

I want to more widely share my story and expertise as a trans geneticist who understands the reality and complexity of "biological sex" 🏳️‍⚧️🧬

Please signal boost?

I was a sensitive kid. I loved cats. I had OCD, undiagnosed.

When I was 9, a fraternity brother tortured a cat to death in my hometown. The details even now are beyond imagination. archive.is/xdmUL

I was traumatized for years from reading the news story.

The torturer? Now the head of the NRA.

When we coauthored a PB paper, the AE was more thorough and careful than almost any I’ve ever worked with, and the manuscript was longer than my dissertation. If I had done what he did, it would have taken weeks. I quickly resolved to never, ever, ever join PB’s Ed board.

Dear lord, is a requirement for peer reviewing conducting the systematic review yourself?

I know some people love to fantasize that there's a crusade against everything they like so they can wallow in sweet, sweet self-righteousness. But protein???

We are excited to announce our partnership with @inclivio.com's software for #SAS2026.
We’re counting down to the conference with a series of posts.
Enter a drawing for 3 EMA study licenses by liking (1 point) and reposting (3 points)!
#SAS #AffectiveScience #EMA #EmotionDynamics

We keep saying it because it keeps being true. He'll leave such a body count. And it won't always be immediate, clearly discernible effects: these policies will impact people for generations & through both proximal and distal, insidious downstream consequences.

I’m so sorry about your patient loss. That’s a terrible thing to endure but especially as a trainee.

This is a monstrous, deadly plan. It also seems like a political loser for RFK. People of all walks of life take antidepressants and will feel personally attacked.

Hmm. So apparently this quaint little comment got me blocked?
I’m not sure I’ve ever gotten blocked before. Who knew my first time would by pointing out the Common Rule definition of human subjects research!

It’s good to debate better norms for AI research. And lots of us are deeply concerned about Big Tech AI models scraping our scholarly work. Hence viral thread.

But, public claims of “harm” or misconduct are serious and can themselves cause reputational damage, especially for grad students.

The thing is, even if you don't like it, analyzing your paper likely doesn't meet the formal definition of human subjects research so consent is not required. And IRBs define "harm" narrowly and don't include things like being personally offended or mildly stressed out. (1/2)

Still sure how you were "harmed" exactly or even how you were involved if all they just ran your paper through an algorithm.

I guess I have a high bar before I publicly launch a crusade against a grad student's research, but OK.

How are they analyzing you? It seems like they analyzing a paper you wrote. Of course, they need consent for asking you questions about your reactions to it, but they are seeking that.

I can understand not wanting to participate if you don't want to help further the development of these kinds of models on principle. But from an IRB perspective, I don't think your consent is required for them to use your papers.

To play devil's advocate, do you object when researchers use publicly available blogs/tweets to conduct sentient analysis to predict posters' emotional states (much more personal than research summaries & doesn't req consent)? Is it that they contacted you that you found objectionable, or use of AI?

Planning to submit to the 2nd Clinical Affective Science Preconference at @affectscience.bsky.social in Pittsburgh? Well, stop slacking off bc the deadline is this Friday! ⏰

@veravine.bsky.social

This dude thinks SGM people make up 1/100,000 of the population. Who wants to tell him???