Felipe Fontana Vieira

Much of expertise in psych. comes from supposedly “data-supported” conclusions. Yet a lot of it is quite sloppy and concerning. Plus, we generally agree that statisticians shouldn’t make claims about emotions, but suddenly we accept psychologists claiming big things achieved through statistics

Tbh, I should have said “research-oriented psychologists“ (still something very general though). I also definitely believe in collaboration. However, the problem I generally see and tried to target with my statement:

But I get your point!

In psychology, we have “normalised“ too much that we “teach students to be psychologists, not statisticians“.

There are many layers to this statement. I do see your point, despite disagreeing with it. What I am wondering though: one can teach statistics through SAS/JASP/SPSS, so what exactly draws you to something like R?

I will never get used to the disdain our country holds for brown and Black children.

From Palestine to Iran to Sudan, we normalize the destruction of schools and hospitals and daycares. We reduce children to death tolls and their futures to rubble with no consequence or second thought.

And I really hope people eventually get to it. rix gets you so far with such a little effort, but it will probably take some years (even among the people who supposedly care about *full* reproducibility)

At least for the packages, you can use remotes::install_version and write a function around it with regex that automatically downloads everything. But it is one of those things that I would be very surprised if it worked smoothly

You mean a function that would automatically install the packages from the sessionInfo output?

That is what we call being baptised on fire after studying in Leuven

This is Belgium and one can imagine you trying to explain to US professors during PhD applications that a 16 here is good, while the other applicant might have a 4.1 GPA

Evaluating Local Structural-After-Measurement (LSAM) and Traditional Approaches for the Estimation of Complex Nonlinear Effects Among Latent Variables: https://osf.io/xk8um

This is quite exciting

In T, pipelines are first-class, and it's possible to run R or Python code. Right the pipeline code, with some nodes running #RStats code, and other #Python code.

oh no, here we go again

There's a nice website that walks through some of the choices: choosealicense.com

I don't understand how someone can be confident with statistics after consultancy work. This week happened again: a question, you think it will take 1 hour, but it takes 1 day (and counting), and you find a bug in the R package. All of that about a topic and package that I supposedly know a lot.

CC by 4.0 is fine!

But I do think MIT may be unnecessary in those cases. Unless I guess it could be used in like a software etc

a man and a woman are looking at each other and the man is asking " both " ALT: a man and a woman are looking at each other and the man is asking " both "

The manuscript text and figures (.qmd) are licensed under CC BY 4.0. The code is licensed under MIT.

Everyone fighing over TIbble versus DF >| vs %>% Me: googling what mean means

Me? I'm just happy to be here #rstats

Been there!

GitHub's own policy office explains the difference: github.com/github/githu....

CC say not to use CC licenses for software: creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-a...

true and fair point, in that case me too

Oh no, I wasn’t expecting an answer haha. I guess I share the same feeling (due to my experience in the job market), but not necessarily due to the “mess” we usually talk about

the real way of asking if someone is optimistic: would you let your kids study psychology?

Measurement Error in Nonlinear (...) - Carroll et al. (2006)

Quantifying Adventitious Error (...) - Wu & Browne 2015

Plus, that statement is conditional on the measure. model being correctly specified and I think it is unclear what the consequences are if not, despite Rhemtulla et al. (2020)

In the sense that we are talking about a very specific definition of measurement error (which may be implied by the context), but if writing that in a teaching material or as a general suggestion, I think space should be dedicated to clarifying it. I will add some sources below that go even further:

For the record:

(I) SEM with latent variables does not necessarily increase power for nonlinear effects
(II) Factor model (i.e., metrical latent and observed variable) does not assume multivariate normality
(III) Saying that SEM with lat. vars controls for measurement error is a poor statement

Thanks!