Simon Columbus

Cool work! Consistent with some work we did on social preferences between Dems and Reps -- a sizeable gap, yes, but on average, participants still were prosocial and spent money to benefit out-party supporters.

In meinem auch nicht, aber experimentelle Soziologen gehören ja auch auf die Rote Liste. Aber was ich so von Diskussion zu Open Science etc. in der Soziologie mitkriege ist nicht gut.

Ich glaube, das ist jetzt echt der erste Hottake, wo ich nicht zustimme. Also, nix gegen Soziologie, aber die Disziplin ist ja empirisch noch schlimmer dran als die Psychologie.

Zur AO hätte ich auch noch ein paar Hottakes

Das zählt aber jetzt nicht als hot take, wa?

I'd add: no agreed-upon framework within which formal theorising can take place.

This is definitely a hot take, but it seems as if any area which identifies such a framework (eg decision theory, various flavours of cog sci) becomes peripheral to psychology as a discipline.

That said, I don't know a single ECR in a core area of psych who works purely on theory, and only one or two whose most prominent paper is theoretical rather than empirical. Maybe it's revealed preferences; maybe we just don't know how to theorise. I suspect the latter.

Sprry, didn't mean to correct you -- I don't know either, though I might have a different prior. At least where I did my PhD, theory (in the sense of classic social psych theory) was highly valued, even if rarely produced.

Is that really true about psychology?

I'd say it's very hard to distinguish theory in psych, but I'd expect a Psych Review paper to count for something -- even though most aren't very good as far as theory goes.

Though I guess subdisciplines might differ in what became sophisticated earlier. My naive view of the history of economics is that it took a while for people to specialise in (lab or field) experiments, but it's the experimentalists who have been driving increasing division of labour.

Sounds almost like it's simply a function of how sophisticated (one might say mathematical) theory in a given discipline is.

Seems even true across subfields: there are pure theorists in more mathematical areas of psych; less division of labour in more atheoretical areas of econ (?)

In Amsterdam, I could complete my 5km commute without ever putting a foot down. I think there were two yields and three lights. Relaxed rules like the Idaho stop help against overpolicing, but they can't replace infrastructure.

One should add that this is only needed in the US because of the unusual proliferation of stop signs. In most other places, those would be yields -- and drivers like cyclists effectively treat them as such anyway.

Around here, even most cycling infrastructure is built for the convenience of drivers, not cyclists. Undoubtedly, this deligitimises infrastructure and laws in the eyes of cyclists.

Dear universities,

I am begging you to stop requiring letters of recommendation for master's programmes. You and I both know you don't read them, so stop asking for them.

Instead, have applicants list a name and get in touch if it's a borderline case.

Signed,
Everyone.

🧵1/
🚨 New article out!
How robust is the psychology of social class?
Together with Nicolas Sommet and ‪@frederiqueautin.bsky.social‬, we conducted large-scale replications of 35 hypotheses across four countries.
Published in Nature Human Behaviour:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

I've a rule to review for any journal at least once, so often, these aren't particularly selective -- but these papers still get published and cited. And in social psychology, there's little consensus on methods, so you'll see some pretty terrible stuff even in top journals.

And then there's idiosyncratic oddities -- I once reviewed a 'systematic review' which identified a single study fitting the selection criteria. Published.

Depends on what one considers fundamentally flawed, I guess. I'd say maybe 20% are broken beyond repair -- confounded experiments, unreliable measures, etc. Then there's invalid analyses, e.g. implausible causality assumptions. Possibly salvageable, but shouldn't be published like that.

Encouraging for oneself, depressing for science as a whole. I keep track of every manuscripts I've reviewed; close to 90% are ultimately published somewhere, even if they are fundamentally flawed.

I'm reviewing a paper in which the authors have clearly fabricated parts of their results. If I simply point this out in my comments and recommend rejection I fear that the authors will simply fix the way that I could detect this and submit their fabricated results elsewhere. Ideas on what to do?

Jil Sander und Money Boy sind eine Person. Krass.

I see. Although I think the mechanism I had in mind would still work: if voters have a stronger male bias than party members, then conditional on list position, a male constituency cand. is more likely to be elected than a female constituency cand. -> replacements increases female share

Does the difference between list and direct mandates play a role here? Do they differ in gender composition? (That was my first intuition: if there is a higher proportion of male constituency MPs than of men on the party lists, but replacements all come from the list, you'd get this pattern)

In case I can reach the @quarto.org and #rstats and windows users driven mad by the inability to render files when stored on dropbox (there must be billions of you right?), here's an Rstudio add-on that uses temp files instead:

github.com/cdriveraus/Q...

Clearly, in this analogy, bisexuals are to homosexuals what vegetarians are to vegans.

Or, to say it with Julia's words, "they try... and fail"

So your friends are flexitarian and flexisexual. I get it.

I've started feeding the sparrows outside my window.

It's like leaving cash outside a business for the mafia to find.

So you're saying female attraction depends on

😎

shape parameters?

> they just point out how women are much more attractive

And yet, they are in relationships with men since forever. Revealed preferences strike again!

(My circle looks very similar)