tl;dr: If you value your time, don’t read this post.
Our recent discussion of the problems with peer review reminded me of this amusing/horrifying story from a few years ago, when some researchers noticed a data coding error in a published paper Once it was noticed, the error was obvious: But the authors of the original paper had that never-back-down attitude. So instead of thanking […]
Mark Palko points us to this op-ed in which psychiatrist Richard Friedman writes: There are also easy and powerful ways to enhance learning in young people. For example, there is intriguing evidence that the attitude that young people have about their own intelligence — and what their teachers believe — can have a big impact […]
OK, here’s the story. A couple days ago, regarding the now-notorious PPNAS article, “Physical and situational inequality on airplanes predicts air rage,” I wrote: NPR will love this paper. It directly targets their demographic of people who are rich enough to fly a lot but not rich enough to fly first class, and who think […]
In an otherwise pointless comment thread the other day, Dan Lakeland contributed the following gem: A p-value is the probability of seeing data as extreme or more extreme than the result, under the assumption that the result was produced by a specific random number generator (called the null hypothesis). I could care less about p-values […]
Yesterday, in the context of a post about news media puffery of the latest three-headed monstrosity to come out of PPNAS, I promised you a solution. I wrote: OK, fine, you might say. But what’s a reporter to do? They can’t always call Andrew Gelman at Columbia University for a quote, and they typically won’t […]
In the comment thread to today’s post on journalists who take PPNAS papers at face value, Mark asked, in response to various flaws pointed out in one of these papers: How can the authors (and the reviewers and the editor) not be aware of something so elementary? My reply: Regarding the authors, see here. Statistics […]
Journalists are suckers for anything that looks like science. And selection bias makes it even worse. But I was unfair to NPR.
Journalists are suckers. Marks. Vics. Boobs. Rubes. You get the picture. Where are the classically street-trained reporters, the descendants of Ring Lardner and Joe Liebling, the hard-bitten journos who would laugh in the face of a press release? Today, nowhere in evidence. I’m speaking, of course, about the reaction in the press to the latest […]
To busy readers: Skip to the tl;dr summary at the end of this post. A psychology researcher sent me an email with subject line, “There’s a hell of a paper coming out in PPNAS today.” He sent me a copy of the paper, “Physical and situational inequality on airplanes predicts air rage,” by Katherine DeCelles […]
Brian Nosek pointed me to this 2013 paper by Theodora Zarkadi and Simone Schnall, “‘Black and White’ thinking: Visual contrast polarizes moral judgment,” which begins: Recent research has emphasized the role of intuitive processes in morality by documenting the link between affect and moral judgment. The present research tested whether incidental visual cues without any […]
Wagenmakers et al. write: A single experiment cannot overturn a large body of work. . . . An empirical debate is best organized around a series of preregistered replications, and perhaps the authors whose work we did not replicate will feel inspired to conduct their own preregistered studies. In our opinion, science is best served […]
Stuart Buck points us to this new paper by Gary Smith that eviscerates the notorious himmicanes and hurricanes paper. Here’s how Smith’s paper begins: Abstract It has been argued that female-named hurricanes are deadlier because people do not take them seriously. However, this conclusion is based on a questionable statistical analysis of a narrowly defined […]
Someone sends me an email, “I don’t know what to do with this so I thought I would send it to you,” with a link to a university press release about a recently published research paper, full of silly statistical errors and signifying nothing. I replied: Can’t you just ignore this? Why give it any […]
One more rep. The new thing you just have to read, if you’re following the recent back-and-forth on replication in psychology, is this post at Retraction Watch in which Nosek et al. respond to criticisms from Gilbert et al. regarding the famous replication project. Gilbert et al. claimed that many of the replications in the […]
A couple days we again discussed the replication crisis in psychology—the problem that all sorts of ridiculous studies on topics such as political moderation and shades of gray, or power pose, or fat arms and political attitudes, or ovulation and vote preference, or ovulation and clothing, or beauty and sex ratios, or elderly-related words and […]