Trying and struggling to understand this perspective. I’ve watched longer talks by Shiffrin and still don’t get it. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/complexity-of-science-v-psprereg/ …pic.twitter.com/XAADkgdIg0
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Could that be it? As a modeller, I totally get Rich's angle. It feels the differences could be explained, at least in part, by what we see and do in our immediate sub(sub)fields?
Yes, I think it has to do with differences in our subfields. I’d really like to get it, & know if he means it as broadly as he’s saying it.
I respect that and I think it's important to understand his points. I feel these perspective-related misunderstandings are pretty common although rarely resolved. Do you think this can be fixed by asking him or by understanding math psych better or a bit of both?
My ideal would be in-person discussions. I suspect we’d need back & forth, going down to the basics, to understand where the diffs stem from
I agree, dialogue and building common ground and mutual understanding would be most beneficial IMO. I cannot link to my own account at the moment (because of the lock), but if I may, here some of my thoughts in this issue:https://twitter.com/CCS_donders/status/1087403274737733632 …
Thanks, Iris.
Well, our field was set up to answer questions like "how to reduce prejudice?" and "how to get people to eat gizzards in wartime?" and continues a strong streak of answer-giving even when the questions become more philosophical.
What's "our field"? Soc/per psych?
Yep, sorry.
Why do you think the question-asking aspect is unique to your sub-area? (I'm trying to avoid implying we're in different fields.)
Experimental (social) psychology by its nature tends to focus on single yes/no questions that give evidence toward a theory, whereas modelling builds a representation to best-fit standards, if I have it right. Can't speak for any other area.
OK, but you can do modelling in any field from chemistry to psychology (social inclusive). So I guess you are saying you don't do that much modelling in social?
Some, but not much. For some reason you see SEM a lot in research on intergroup processes, for example.
Exactly, because they are orthogonal issues. I just want to underline: I am in an Experimental Psychology dept and for that reason as well as others, I consider myself in that (sub)field. So I am trying to understand you and others, who (I consider) are in the same field/dept.
I am not in this sub-field, but I can relate to Shiffrin's point in a slightly different way. Sometimes, one can point out/illustrate a new way of doing things where the motivation/argument for it is primarily theoretical. 1/
Yet it seems most scientists & their communities don't accept purely theoretical arguments. So one tries to illustrate it empirically with a new kind of study or dataset. But the numbers/empirical evidence are often highly preliminary/weak. 2/
Yet for some reason the latter strategy seems to be persuasive & compelling in getting a field to think differently even when the actual empirical evidence is weak/flawed wasn't even necessary/crucial to make the whole argument. This is something I am trying to understand. 3/3
Cargo cults...in the past, experiments have been successful at providing the data that has convinced the field. Therefore future experiments as opposed to theories matter.
If it worked for physics...
I agree with the theoretical and empirical split. I would go even further with the disciplinary idea: I don't even think Psychology holds together as a research discipline at all. It only continues to exist as such because of university administrative needs.
I'm not thrilled with the idea of a split. I think all theory folks should get their hands into raw data, even if they don't collect it.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.