Python 
.
... that the picture is photoshopped. A claim of 12ft human is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence. Why don't we treat d > 1 for subtle psychological effects in the same way?
Show this thread
A d = 1.3, p < .001, for a metaphorical priming effect, turns out to be based on untrustworthy data? I'm tempted to be sarcastic here, but I'll try to be constructive instead: If someone posted a picture of 12ft tall human, 99% of people would conclude... 1/2https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1458142345895940105 …
Another expression of concern for the last author (in addition to prior retraction). Thx to @AaronCharlton for digging into this & raising red flags.
"because the original data for this article cannot be located, the errors cannot be corrected"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976211058727 …
"because the original data for this article cannot be located, the errors cannot be corrected"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976211058727 …
Show this thread
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@andre_quentin can I reference your tweet in a talk I'm giving in why the purpoted effects of Botox on depression are implausibly large?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1754073919868762 … -
Haha of course, I'd be honored! I really liked your paper BTW, a nice effort to re-tether effect sizes to reality, and not just accept them at as "numbers in a paper".
- Show replies
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.