Hey! The organization that publishes all those Psychological Science-style papers has scheduled their featured presentations for their next meeting.
– That person who slaps the label “terrorists” on people who have the nerve to question their statistical errors.
– One of the people who claimed that women were 20 percentage points were likely to vote for Barack Obama, during a certain time of the month.
– One of the people who claimed that women are three times as likely to wear red, during a certain time of the month.
– The editor of the notorious PPNAS papers on himmicanes, air rage, and ages ending in 9.
– One of the people who claimed, “That a person can, by assuming two simple 1-min poses, embody power and instantly become more powerful has real-world, actionable implications.”
– Yet another researcher who responded to a failed replication without even acknowledging the possibility that their original claims might have been in error.
– The person who claimed, “Barring intentional fraud, every finding is an accurate description of the sample on which it was run.”
The whole thing looks like a power play. The cargo-cult social psychologists have the power, and they’re going to use it. They’ll show everyone who’s boss. Nobody’s gonna use concerns such as failed replications, lack of face validity, and questionable research practices to push them around!
Talk about going all-in.
All they’re missing are speakers on ESP, beauty and sex ratio, the contagion of obesity, ego depletion, pizza research, 2.9013, and, ummm, whatever Mark Hauser and Diederik Stapel have been up to recently.
Here’s the official line:
The mission of the Association for Psychological Science is to promote, protect, and advance the interests of scientifically oriented psychology in research, application, teaching, and the improvement of human welfare.
I guess that works, as long as you use the following definitions:
“promote” = Ted talks, twitter, and NPR;
“protect” = deflect scientific criticism;
“advance the interests of scientifically oriented psychology” = enhance the power of a few well-situated academic psychologists and their friends.
It’s a guild, man, nuthin but an ivy-covered Chamber of Commerce. Which is fine—restraint of trade is as American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.
The only trouble is that I’m guessing that the Association for Psychological Science has thousands of members who have no interest in protecting the interests of this particular club. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Psychology is not just a club of academics, and “psychological science” is not just the name of their treehouse.