Depressing. Despite repeated concerns about limited samples in evolutionary behavioural sci, @tvpollet & Tamsin Saxton find articles in evo journals STILL hugely biased towards WEIRD samples (2015). Do journals need to use max quotas for WEIRD articles?https://osf.io/7h24p/
-
-
Yes, WEIRD samples shouldn't be dismissed out of hand; useful under some circumstances (exploratory research, experiments, collecting data not available elsewhere) but results need to be carefully interpreted, not over-generalised & robustness tested (i.e. biases recognised)
-
I think this is an interesting idea to address those issueshttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691617708630 …
-
Looks like another great article - thanks!
-
Thinking about this more today, I wonder if more work with direct cross-cultural comparisons is what we need (as opposed to work testing samples from a single pop)?
-
I’ve not seen much discussion of it, but the most worrying thing
@tvpollet’s work highlights isn’t the bias towards WEIRD samples, but the paucity of cross-cultural work, imo. -
cross-cultural work is absolutely the way to go but current incentives don't favour it (with some exceptions-ERC were happy to fund my cross-cultural grant. But then UK academics will lose access to such an open-minded funder very shortly...)
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.