Chris Crandall

This statement can only be true if you use an arbitrary standard pitched at a level too high for almost all humans to meet.

So it’s “the feels.”
OK.

It’s ok. Why? Because that’s how scholarship and science work.

Getting angry though? It’s unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

How did you diagnose “data-dredging?”

This sounds like anger to me.

I appreciate your move to greater specificity. Still pretty broad.

Being angry is not an excuse for libel, though.

Or we can recognize the complexity and eschew offering simplistic solutions on social media. Two decent choices.

The post right above your.

Imagine thinking Americans are all the same.

Up AND out, a new academic reality.

And get fired before their analyses make it to the public.

You must ask yourself whether the results, and how they’re handled/written up, are correlated with the quality of the research.

If they are, you’re ignoring top quality information about the value of the paper.

Maybe find a less quality-reducing way of promoting high-quality null results.

I have some good news, and some bad news.

@jswilkins.bsky.social is just making a clever little joke. 👍🏻

I am telling what we have been doing for years. You’re transforming the “is” into an “ought” about what we should do going forward. I’m not answering that question—merely correcting the notion that replication is somehow new.

Was saying that “replication & extension” was a way to do science for decades preceding the “crisis.”

There’s debate about what a crisis is—not taking a position on that.

Why I’m Leaving Columbia When antisemitism became institutional, radical professors fanned the flames and colleagues stayed silent, I had no choice but to walk away. But I won’t stop fighting.

Shai Davidai has pissed a lot of people off, but he’s also been a very productive and interesting social psychologist. It really does seem he’s been pushed out of Columbia for showing up and speaking, which is a reasonable expectation for a professor.

www.tabletmag.com/sections/new...

(Depends upon what one calls “recent” of course. Older is further back than 1981, bc that’s the year of my first publication.)😉

Lots of things in psychology are not at all suspect. Reinforcement schedules, memory processes, social comparison, normative influence, much etc.

Some things are, but older is safer bc replication + extension is decades, centuries old.

Some people just lost faith + bandwagon.

I wouldn’t quite put it that way. Very, very few studies that are “older” (let’s say 70s and beyond) have been looked at in this way.

A few older studies were targeted bc the scientists had serious doubts. Probably countable on one hand.

NB: Fraud is something else.

Most focus is “recent.”

Uli, I think you have received a fountain of feedback on the things you do well and the things that set people off. It’s been so many opportunities, that I think there has to be something to it.

Condescension, anger, a sense of moral superiority & ridicule are things that people find unappealing.

Does this photo still get you blocked by Pinker?

Dispiriting choices?

I think you might find Xwitter more to your liking.

I prefer that you do not yell invective at me.
I’d like you to please stop.

You’re busy denigrating difficult and useful work. That’s what sad people do.

Salt is poison.
Sugar is poison.
Carrot juice is poison

It’s all a question of dosage.

I want to remind you that headaches are not caused by a lack of aspirin.

Treatments only have to “work,” they are not required to attack a theoretical root cause. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Boy, the condescending pinheads really come out for this issue.

You sound sad.

I’m cool with that. I’m also not tied to the notion that models of cognitive processing must be shackled tightly to evidence of brain structure. I don’t think we’re to the point msmt where it’s required.

I accept criticism from Yaacov Schul any day of the week.

This is not to say there is not evidence of two speeds at which we process information, though. It’s how to interpret the evidence.

In any case, quick dismissal is prob not the right approach.