Actually, I am not certain that headlines using that specific phrasing are necessarily inaccurate. This is because there are two ways to read that girls' pain was "taken less seriously." One way, which is basically right, is that the girl's pain was inferred to be less
-
-
versus girls given an identical display of pain, we (1) would need to have conducted a very different of experiment w a different design & different measures, including measures of, for example, endorsement of sexist attitudes (on some clear conception/theory of sexism), and
Prikaži ovu nit -
(2) we would have to have set up our hypotheses in such a way that, if the data turned out such-and-so, this could count *against* our hypothesis. By contrast, if, no matter which way the data came out, we could have found a way to interpret this as being consistent with
Prikaži ovu nit -
our particular theory/conceptualization/operationalization of sexism, then our hypothesis would not be meaningfully falsifiable and that would be a troubling feature. And based on the way the media coverage was playing out, it seemed plausible to me that, at least a popular 'lay'
Prikaži ovu nit -
theory of sexism, might indeed have elements that are unfalsifiable in the present context. E.g., the coverage from Jezebel (https://jezebel.com/girls-pain-taken-less-seriously-than-boys-study-confir-1832233139 …) seemed to just assume that the findings "confirmed" deeply entrenched sexism. But a single finding can't confirm any such thing.pic.twitter.com/7PEJ8n4EJW
Prikaži ovu nit -
For more on falsifiability in the context of findings in psychology, see my paper with David Trafimow:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621/full …
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.