Paper urges psychologist not to shout their failed replications from the rooftops, because it makes science look bad. https://psyarxiv.com/8a4h6/ pic.twitter.com/vrn4RBJpm3
This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on June 1, 2020. Please switch to a supported browser, or disable the extension which masks your browser. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.
Science writer and book author in psychology, neuroscience and evolution
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Paper urges psychologist not to shout their failed replications from the rooftops, because it makes science look bad. https://psyarxiv.com/8a4h6/ pic.twitter.com/vrn4RBJpm3
I think you are completely misrepresenting the authors point, and in doing so, lead one of your followers to respond he wants to punch the guy in his face. Maybe you can put less of your own prejudices, and more of what the author actually writes, in your tweet?
I never realised until he covered on of my own papers that @DegenRolf’s summaries are highly selective quotes, not the abstract.
Fairer quote: “Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.”
Yeah, he also has a really bad habit of not applying his critical view to small N evolutionary psychology research. And always leaves out the Ns. Still like the excerpts sometimes though, but it's 50% chance of being misled these days.
You are getting a free public service of the widest array of news from psychological and related research which you get nowhere else, I dare to say. And it's an invitation to post peer review. This costs immense time and effort.
Still, would be better if you included the Ns and left out the horribly underpowered stuff with overly broad implications. It's puzzling for me how can you can see and nicely communicate problems of social, but ignore same probs in EP.
Well, I do not endorse every cited paper. Some I post just because they are silly or (thought) provoking. And I trust readers being intelligent enough to tell the difference.
Yes, I get that. But you do add your own no-nonsense take quite often, so I am often surprised when I find that you cover an article which has the exact pathologies (including virality) you cover in other tweets.
And the N thing: is it really so much to ask? That's why I always have to click through. Your excerpts usually allow me to judge design and theory, but I always have to check for the amount of evidence.
The N problem is indeed a big one. In many many cases it is embarrassing. If I had to post only studies with enough power, I could almost stop posting.
I disagree. I follow you for selection but also the fact that you add your critical takes, and I'm bound to see low N studies crop up elsewhere anyway, so for me this would make things easier. I patreon @gwern's newsletter for this, i.e. this saves me time and is worth money.
I agree with this. Please ignore low N studies or studies with suspicious p = .03 for 2nd order interactions etc. (non-prereg).
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.