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
“pretends that the new theory predicted the results and thereby confirms it” is arguably in the neighborhood of lying.
But you think he says it's OK? Based on this, I guess? "What is the harm?" Not sure asking what the harm is the same as saying it's 100% OK.
Interesting, yeah, I read it as he thinks it’s not a problem. Would be good to find out what he meant.
He meant IMHO to probe the assumptions inherent in assuming that pre-reg solves what (you all think) it solves for social/personality for the rest of psych and science generally.
maybe you know this guy and so you have insider information that changes you how read this passage. but to an outsider (I'm an applied statistican / economist) it sounds pretty bad.
"Bad" to me means a value judgement. So I take it you think him publishing his views will affect the field of psych generally negatively? But it's how we can all as a field understand each other. If he doesn't type out what he thinks, what other way do we have to get started?
And yes, of course I know Rich Shiffrin. His views will represent many in the math psych community.
Same here, Rich is a well known figure in the field. I read his remarks as saying that there is an economy of trust in science and this seems obviously true. Pre-reg will not eliminate this economy either.
The whole passage excerpted by @siminevazire at the start of the thread.
I don't see it that way at all.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.