Skip to content
Archive of posts filed under the Zombies category.

Replication controversies

I don’t know what ATR is but I’m glad somebody is on the job of prohibiting replication catastrophe: Seriously, though, I’m on a list regarding a reproducibility project, and someone forwarded along this blog by psychology researcher Simone Schnall, whose attitudes we discussed several months ago in the context of some controversies about attempted replications […]

If you do an experiment with 700,000 participants, you’ll (a) have no problem with statistical significance, (b) get to call it “massive-scale,” (c) get a chance to publish it in a tabloid top journal. Cool!

David Hogg points me to this post by Thomas Lumley regarding a social experiment that was performed by randomly manipulating the content in the news feed of Facebook customers. The shiny bit about the experiment is that it involved 700,000 participants (or, as the research article, by Adam Kramera, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock, quaintly […]

Why I’m not posting on this topic

A colleague writes: Following our recent ** article (on which you commented favourably . . .), are you maybe planning a blog post on this? Both ** and ** have extensively analysed the statistical methods used in the original article, and found them wanting. I would really like to see the ** article retracted, as […]

Scientists behaving badly

By “badly,” I don’t just mean unethically or immorally; I’m also including those examples of individual scientists who are not clearly violating any ethical rules but are acting in a way as to degrade, rather than increase, our understanding of the world. In the latter case I include examples such as the senders of the […]

Ray Could Write

Now he is scattered among a hundred cities And wholly given over to unfamiliar affections, To find his happiness in another kind of wood And be punished under a foreign code of conscience. . . . You were silly like us; your gift survived it all: For chess makes nothing happen: it survives In the […]

This is where they publish the stuff that can’t make it into Psychological Science

N=22 (link from here and here). I was unhappy to see that the two news articles took the study at face value. Photoplethysmograph, indeed. As Daniel Kahneman might say, “You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true.” Not.

Yes, I’ll help people for free but not like this!

I received the following (unsolicited) email: Dear Sir or Madam, My name is **; I am a graduate student, working on my thesis in **. A vital part of my research is performing a joint cluster analysis of attributional and relational data on **. I have tried to collaborate with the statisticians at ** and […]

Three ways to present a probability forecast, and I only like one of them

To the nearest 10%: To the nearest 1%: To the nearest 0.1%: I think the National Weather Service knows what they’re doing on this one.

The Fault in Our Stars: It’s even worse than they say

In our recent discussion of publication bias, a commenter link to a recent paper, “Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back,” by Abel Brodeur, Mathias Le, Marc Sangnier, Yanos Zylberberg, who point to the notorious overrepresentation in scientific publications of p-values that are just below 0.05 (that is, just barely statistically significant at the conventional level) […]

I didn’t say that! Part 2

Uh oh, this is getting kinda embarrassing. The Garden of Forking Paths paper, by Eric Loken and myself, just appeared in American Scientist. Here’s our manuscript version (“The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead […]