Cohen suggested that medium effect sizes and larger should be visible to the naked eye. So let's talk about what is visible to the naked eye in the thread that Jenny (yay Jenny!) draws our attention to:
Dani--an award-winning computational cognitive scientist, with a math background so deep she could make us all look silly if she unloaded it, and a history of developing open-science resources well before it was cool--contributed to a paper offering a critique of preregistration.
The lead author, Aba, is a doc student who has co-authored TWO of the big RRR's, published in AMPPS, and helped to coauthor papers promoting other methods developments the OS community has wanted to increase usage of.
What has been the response? Men dismissing them out of hand, including multiple remarks that their paper is such a flagrantly stupid bad-faith take, that it shouldn't be engaged with at all.
This, OS community friends, is a visible-to-the-naked-eye case of some serious _____ist/____phobic bullshit (misogynist and transphobic would be my choices, but CYOA).
These folks have contributed to the cause--and in concrete, substantial ways--well above the level of the average OS prophet. And we're cool with them being told, "Nah, this is fucking stupid. Go away and let us have the conversations about what's really important."???? C'mon!
When I wrote a paper arguing *against* the new statistics, you know what kind of outrage I got? None. And when Alison Ledgerwood and I presented some data critiquing our movement's fetishization of preregistration at last year's SPSP precon? Crickets. Maybe folks thought I was>
dumb, and should be ignored, but at least they kept that to themselves. But here, loudly and proudly, we see "this is silly. You're trolling. Don't read this." What could explain the difference in response...
I'm legit working myself up into a frenzy over here. We want to be a movement about "openness". Sure. Right. Cool cool cool. If these folks haven't done enough for OS to be considered beyond intentional/cynical/hostile bad-faith takes, NONE of us are.
And god help any newbie who is working their feelings and thoughts out about things like data sharing, preregistration, preprints, sequential analysis, or whatever the new thing is that we're lusting after. Because clearly, we're *very* ready to tell those people they are stupid>
and that they should be quiet, "read a few book and think hard for a few years" (that's a near verbatim dismissal i've seen in a previous dustup) and let the grownups talk. This is no longer about growing the tent; we are now an exercise in protecting--and enabling--our idols.
If this bothers you, and you have any cred in the OS community (and I increasingly believe I don't, so newcomers welcome), it's time to speak up/out against this kind of shit. This #bropenscience BS is not the kind of movement I--and I think many of you--signed up for.
