Indeed. Before coming to psychology I was in biology. When someone was a "modeler" this almost NEVER meant they used *statistical* models. Rather, they were mathematical models to, for example, study animal response and survival from environmental change. Basically, to understand
-
-
Replying to @wdonald_1985 @o_guest and
the logic of a system and to provide some interesting ways to think of things for empirical researchers. On the other hand, now that I am in psychology, the "modeling" I do is all based on statistical models and, IMO, can almost never be used to draw strong conclusions. Rather,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wdonald_1985 @o_guest and
I literally "trail blaze" a path from the data to the finished model, all in an effort to first get a model that converges and to also highlight what the MODEL can be used for in general. There are so (so) many data dependent decisions along the way, that I would conclude nothing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wdonald_1985 @o_guest and
from them, which is to EJs point. However, the intention is never meant to be inferential but to find some data to show case a MODEL that the hope is others can use in their own research.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wdonald_1985 @o_guest and
So for this kind of modeling the data is often intentionally selected (and combed over) with the goal of highlighting what the MODEL can be used for. However, I do think pre-reg would be helpful here as applied researchers often like to interpret the findings.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @VandekerckhoveJ @wdonald_1985 and
But it would be nice if the theories that were crafted have some relation to the real world.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I mean I have a modelling paper without any empirical data.http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21397 …
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.