I agree with the premise of the paper, tbh, even if it is stated too strongly. An "effect size" is meaningful only with respect to a presumed model, and (in cogsci) this model must be tuned both to the underlying cognitive phenomenon and the toy world of the experiment. (1/2)
Abandon p values (and CIs), AND effect sizes... Let's not forget that anything Bayesian is LITERALLY data fabrication...
Do we even need to bother collecting data?
Guess I'll hand in a packet of blank pages for my PhD dissertation 
https://twitter.com/PsyArXivBot/status/1223714434369118212 …
-
-
-
In practice, our understanding of the cognitive process is very limited so the toy world does a lot of the "work" in constraining the measurement. Consequently, I'm often deeply unsure about how a "measured effect size" in the toy world can be projected onto the real one. (2/2)
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Don't let it deplete your ego
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
We're long overdue for a return to Titchenerian introspective psychology.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
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.