What would you guys say the gold standard should be for measuring this variable, e.g. at a minimum and then ideally?
It's worrying that you all want to improve this research instead of decry it as fundamentally misconstrued.
-
-
See this thread for discussion of that aspect:https://twitter.com/lisadebruine/status/907685469160394754 …
-
I'm not sure that does cover what I'm saying. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on that — appreciated.
-
For example, I worry that nobody was bothered when people showed smile intensity *didn't* predict longetivity of baseball players...
-
...but a positive finding could have had widespread bad effects if insurance companies adopted that sort of analysis.
-
I would have been bothered but sure, yeah, not as much since LGBT people continue to be murdered for their status. But yes, I'd have said it
-
is shitty science. I get called out on Twitter when I say big five is shitty.

-
Oh god I think you'd hate some of my papers
-
Probably, although to be honest I actually don't seek out papers I hate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.