@jamesheathers thoughts ?
-
-
-
Big C, how are you. Thoughts? Yes. Happily I have committed them to virtual paper long ago.https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/meet-the-new-bad-people-4922137949a1 …
New conversation -
-
-
But the article is nonsense: it is based on a false claim that today's focus on reproducability is due to new statistical methods. But the statistial fallacies being called out have been well known for decades, sometimes taught, and routinely ignored. Shame.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
superstar researcher calls for non-star researchers to tone it down in their criticisms to high-impact (and perhaps dubious) research. self-serving bias anyone?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Dr Pinker, you're one of my intellectual heroes, & this response saddens me. Do you really think we should continue to treat facial feedback hypothesis, positivity ratio, ego depletion etc. as good science simply because that'd be better manners? What happened to falsifiability?
-
I don't think Dr Pinker is very keen on the positivity ratio.https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/359721149170593792 …
-
Glad to hear it! I mentioned it because it Pardis Sabeti referred to Barbara Frederickson as a "good scientist" who has been "attacked" (presumably she means in relation to the positivity ratio stuff).
-
Most of the criticism of Dr. Fredrickson's work has been conducted in the peer-reviewed literature (American Psychologist, PNAS, PLOS ONE, Personality and Individual Differences).
-
I'm not sure how the list of "victims" was established. The author seems to have a very extensive grasp of social psychology. Presumably there is a reason why Brian Wansink (whom Andrew Gelman has criticised many times) was not on the list.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
An excellent pairing here by
@jamesheathers suggested by@siminevazirehttps://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-we-find-and-expose-bad-science-e47387a0e333 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yet feminism is corrupting evolutionary psychology. When I asked what defined the "feminist" in feminist evolutionary perspectives society FB page I was told this.pic.twitter.com/A2x2ECl0qQ
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Social sciences don't get to tell women what their "place" is.
-
SCIENCE is about studies, not policy. Science doesn't determine the way we build our society, it ONLY STUDIES it. Science doesn't determine what humans think about themselves.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Correction: Superstar human geneticist
@PardisSabeti - disingenuously misrepresents@StatModeling’s criticisms as “vitriol” etc - ignores arguments for the importance of (even harsh) criticism - seems ignorant of how trying to confirm “effects” is basically pseudo-#science.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Twitter superstar Trillburne calls for you to cut that damn hair
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.