serious (as in less severe) than the boy's pain. So the relevant headlines are not wrong *on that reading.* But the headlines and framing seemed to morph as coverage continued, to an interpretation of "taken less seriously" as something more like "cared about less" or
-
-
(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.