I fear we are in a cultural moment in which it is socially acceptable to tear down another scientist without proposing meaningful alternatives / hypotheses. This destructive impulse has the potential to drive away young scientists we need to further the research.
-
-
-
Psychology is absolutely leading the way with concrete, actionable ideas for improving reproducibility & replicability, from increasing power to defining & avoiding p-hacking and HARKing to taking up preregistration, registered reports & open data/materials sharing.
-
Very interesting. Is there a guide or how-to somewhere that spells this all out?
-
SIPS,
@improvingpsych http://improvingpsych.org/mission/ .@chrisdc77 excellent https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908 …. Center for Open Sci,@OSFramework, incl registered reports https://cos.io/rr/ & preregistration https://cos.io/prereg/ & badges https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges/ … & TOP https://cos.io/our-services/top-guidelines/ … -
and check the course syllabi listed here: https://osf.io/fuds5/ I linked to my new grad class where I provide resources/demonstrations on how to engage in open science practices throughout the research process. There are no problems, only solutions
-
Destructo-Terrorists like you put us all to shame.
-
Which reminds me, I need to add to my CV "Destructo-Terrorist: 2013 - present".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here's a 27 page reader on the reproducibility issues mostly in psych that shows 1) we've been discussing these issues for decades, 2) the issues are not particular to social psychology, 3) the uncivil voices are far outweighed by constructive voiceshttp://bit.ly/2DWQszp
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A dozen or so examples of harsh language are presented as if they come from many social psychologists, but in fact they all come from one person, Columbia statistician Andy Gelman.
-
It wouldn't be quite as compelling to say, "Social psychology as an entire field needs to be more productive in their debates, because there's this one guy who isn't even a psychologist who has said some harsh words on his blog."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
interesting piece, but i disagree. i'm ashamed by how genomics has largely kept quiet publicly about our failures, & i'm worried that we're still making unrealistic promises. what social psych is doing is painful, but more honest & perhaps healthier in the long run
-
Not even GCTA?
-
Do i think people are being unrealistic about the clinical promise of GCTA? Yes
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
One big factor is that you can't really get rich by peddling fraudulent genomics. OTOH people like Cuddy, Greenwald, etc. have huge monetary incentives to publicize results they know are fake.
-
I think you have it backwards. You can get a lot more money from fraudulent genomics. But you do it by peddling to VCs, not the public
-
One of the psychologists mentioned in the BG piece managed to get a pretty terrible hybrid psych-genomics study into PNAS...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a bad, terribly biased take. Much of social psych is quietly moving forward with better research practices. The blow ups are generally when researchers with “threatened” findings refuse to accept that they might be wrong.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
For a more balanced analysis of the situation, read this.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/replication_controversy_in_psychology_bullying_file_drawer_effect_blog_posts.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.