I wish I was more surprised. There is a loophole in FERPA that allows universities to access students' private therapy records for the purpose of defending themselves in court. There was a notorious case at my university involving this with a rape survivor oregonlive.com/education/2015…
Oregon banned it after that incident came out. But AFAIK it is still permitted at a federal level oregonlive.com/education/2015…
Thanks to activists, Oregon's confidentiality protections for students who talk to campus counselors about domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking are now some of the strongest. They need to be replicated (or made even stronger) nationwide so they protect everyone
And now a thread of things that must be true in order to validly interpret a standard mediation analysis.
These are assumptions you must defend with outside knowledge. They are not tested as part of the analysis, and often they are not testable even in principle.
If psychologists had to present and defend a DAG every time they did a mediation analysis, 10% of them would result in "sorry the effect we care about isn't identified" and the other 90% would be "sorry we don't understand this phenomenon well enough to draw a DAG"
(Apparently today is "be salty about mediation" day in my brain)
Real talk though, I think mediation analysis can sometimes be useful if it comes with a thorough, eyes-open discussion of all the things that must be true for it to be interpretable as mediation
Hey psychology twitter. The journalist Jesse Singal is probably going to be showing up on your radar because he has a new book about social psychology. He has also written about trans people. I want to encourage you to read what trans people have said about that work
There is a lot of stuff out there and it can feel a little overwhelming. Here is one place to start, a collection of links to critiques of a very influential 2018 Atlantic article he wrote patreon.com/posts/19542136
This tweet and the thread it is a part of encapsulate some of what really sunk in the most to me about the criticism
Is who you follow on Twitter correlated with your mental health? Using machine learning, we find that the high-degree accounts that people follow - celebrities, public figures, etc. - can predict anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, & anger (out-of-sample R = .2)
Substantive upshot: A user's Twitter experience - what they see in their feed - is heavily affected by their decisions of who to follow. Those curation decisions, in the aggregate, are associated with mental health
Some notes and points of interest:
1. "Predict" is used in the machine-learning sense, think of this as a correlation - causality wasn't tested
2. The size of the correlation is neither huge nor neglible. We don't think it can be dismissed but it shouldn't be exaggerated either