I honestly felt that the whole thing was a prelude to her next book on bullying.
-
-
-
You cannot deny — TED talk, this article, etc. — she is a very good player.

-
Well perhaps this whole thing is actually helping her find a more suitable career than science. Giving talks, writing pop sci books, etc.
-
Maybe — and this is the rub — but maybe, she never found science in the first place in social psy? At least that's what this article claims.
-
How do you mean? She was drawn to social psych bec of her perceived lack of scientific rigor? Bec she was in it to come up with cool stuff?
-
I just mean given the article's thesis (as I propose it to be) none them were ever doing science.
-
Yeah I have met people who thought building cool narratives was the purpose of research. Some are genuinely fascinated by that possibility!
-
Don't get me wrong narratives are cool and useful for
#scicomm — but science itself is cool too. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
yes, although my feeling is if we used replicability as our metric some other fields eg biology of cancer are similarly in trouble...!
-
It all depends on how one defines science. I mean you could be Feyerabend for all I know!
-
(I do legitimately think people ignore the consequence of basic Bayesian logic here; some areas are more complex than others)
-
My prior confidence in a field where you rely on indirect observation of a highly complex system is much lower
-
"Gelman [...] does not believe that social psychology is any more guilty of P-hacking than, say, biology or economics"
-
oh absolutely! i was more going for my view that stuff that relies on egnetwork analysis of cells is, imo, very hard to be confident in
-
so other things being equal i would expect the field to have lots of false positives and complications
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.