Chris Crandall

I taught four courses for UF, full-time, 300 students each, $28,500.

GASP, the GLBTQ+ Alliance in Social and Personality Psychology is sponsoring a mentoring lunch with a TERRIFIC group of mentors at the SPSP Meeting on Friday, Feb 27. Take a look here:
www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0C4EAB...

🪶📜 = poetic license emoji.

I agree. I was simply responding to the “there’s no universe where this makes causal sense.” It’s not unimaginable.

Which is not evidence in favor of it, of course.

Low-to-zero has least health benefits, modest has higher benefits, too much involves loss of benefit to direct harm.

Sodium intake has this shape.

That’s more straightforward, for sure.

If you want to make a philosophical or scientific argument, you should make it.

You’re simply saying that you’ve got different epistemic commitments which preclude the acceptance of “western psychology.” OK by me, but why use exaggerations of the “replication crisis” to make your point? It’s superfluous.

OK. “Probably turn out to be” is the same as “more likely than not” or even stronger. And no matter the case, it’s almost certainly objectively incorrect (if you allow “objectively” to be a meaningful concept).

The intent of your words seems to be to cast serious doubt. I disagreed.

There are always moderators in psych. Some are hidden.

It’s only that the talk be *responsible,* as suppression of all moderator talk would be scientifically irresponsible and suppressive.

They need to be plausible, and to be taken seriously, must have some supportive data.

This is just ill-informed. “All claims unfounded”? Like effects of categorization, chunking, schedules of reinforcement, social comparison and conformity, acquisition of language, and the like?

A scientist should use language carefully.

I think it was fast. Just not fast enough.

Same for HIV. Remarkably fast by some measures.

It’s just that people were dying faster.

That’s simply unfair to scientists who go forth in good faith and 1/20 times (or 1/100) get data that leads to Type I error and then publish.
Or a publishing system that informally recognizes that null results are less informative than “successes” bc of the Duhem-Quine hypothesis/problem.

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

Don’t be too quick to think she’ll win. There is a well-established policy exception to free speech.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

Agreed. This is chat from someone who’s spent too much time in the evo psych literature and not enough time with actual adult college students.

That’s your nihilism speaking.

No excuses for Ariely, but that’s not uncommon. Consider the personal relationships literature, the empathy literature, the prejudice literature, the leadership literature.

Nice work!

Much harder than the online questionnaire (not against them per se, but); their near-hegemony and relative ease of administration and large N is a threat to the value of the field.

The list of reliable knowledge is long, stable, useful, and often ignored when talking about the “replication crisis” which is more a crisis of confidence than a true gutting of the research base. It’s real, but it doesn’t erase a century of stable accomplishments, either.

There are failures to replicate. There is also a massive reliable research base, and it is the latter which should’ve formed the basis of your education. Reinforcement schedules, norms and conformity, language acquisition, cognitive-behavioral therapy, statistical reasoning, and so on.

Not true, unless your instructors were fools.

Thanks! Work along with Sam Arnold, Jenn Wong Chavez and Kelly Swanson.

I was reluctant at first, but really glad we did it!

Better than proposing something impossible.

He’s in demand, and he mostly doesn’t want to do it, setting rates to discourage.

I don’t do stats consulting, but I don’t do outside work for under $400/hr. (For private clients—law firms mostly.)

You may be underselling yourselves.

Please preserve the context and qualifiers when you quote or characterize what I’ve said here. Thx.

I appreciate the reserved hostility, and also the stripping of context and qualifiers. But, in the one-way spirit of geniality, I’ve marked in light green those QRPs which are, in some cases, minor threats to scientific progress. Not unbiased, but not a *crisis* in some cases.

You should find out which QRPs are being committed. Some QRPs are fine to do in some situations. What if those are the prevalent ones?

As opposed to . . .?

What does “properly” exclude?