Needlessly antagonistic? I think not, Turkheimer did essentially call people interested in this topic for pseudoscientists etc.
Nothing mysterious, not hard to understand, but you have to open your mind (and your eyes in some cases).pic.twitter.com/aVwNVAjt3K
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes. Double standards. See eghttp://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are good arguments but Turkheimer doesn't use themhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193237/ …
-
The non-ergodicity args that our psychometrics scales won't work is the best strongman of what he is saying. Also threaded replies!
-
These "it works in practice, but does it work in this complicated mathematical theory?"-type arguments have ~0 impact on me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
more importantly, nothing "pseudoscientific" if one opens their mind.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That whole section is a tour de force. I cite it in a manuscript I have out at a journal.
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.