Treating psychology as hard science you can do basic science on is a mistake. Human behavior is way too contextual and individualized to act like a context-free experiment on "something fundamental" applies to specific contexts.
https://twitter.com/BrentWRoberts/status/1297617968919195649
The most important thing about behavioral science that I've learned as a consultant applying it to the design of software:
The academic research doesn't map 1-1 with applied situations. Using that research as a lens increases the probability of your predictions coming true.
The academic research doesn't map 1-1 with applied situations. Using that research as a lens increases the probability of your predictions coming true.
If you want to change the output of a system, you've got to change its input/output function. Participant behavior is transformed by the system into an output
An infinite number of factors could influence a person's behavior. My job is to figure out what important in context.
An infinite number of factors could influence a person's behavior. My job is to figure out what important in context.
I can trust research where the boundary conditions of the claims are clear.
I want to see the ideas applied to multiple situations and populations so I can understand who the researchers claims and evidence apply to and when.
I want to see the ideas applied to multiple situations and populations so I can understand who the researchers claims and evidence apply to and when.
I would really love to see more research that says, “We want to understand this context and/or population. What are the factors affecting people’s behavior, and how do they weight up against each other?”
What behaviors do we see in this system? Why are we seeing those behaviors instead of others?
Normally, research is about how a specific intervention affects a specific behavior in a population.
More useful to me are tools to understand a context so I can develop interventions
Normally, research is about how a specific intervention affects a specific behavior in a population.
More useful to me are tools to understand a context so I can develop interventions
The most useful research helps me:
1. diagnose the reasons why a person’s behavior is or isn’t occurring in a system
2. predict what will happen when I change some input, function, or loop in that system
1. diagnose the reasons why a person’s behavior is or isn’t occurring in a system
2. predict what will happen when I change some input, function, or loop in that system
Studying combinatory effects and conditions is hard though. The experimental method with one intervention at a time doesn't work for this quite as well as qualitative or ethnographic methods imo. The challenge then is how you interpret your interpretations
https://twitter.com/RobertHaisfield/status/1254779397074120705?s=20
To be clear, my interpretation is different than @BrentWRoberts of the QT. He believes that complexity does not make it impossible to study and form theory. I largely agree with that. I just think people’s reactions to situations are less consistent than elements mixing.
https://twitter.com/brentwroberts/status/1389352506099183619
Please don’t interpret this thread as me trying to put words in his mouth.
I struggle to trust studies of behavior when they research a specific population in a controlled context, and then generalize their claims too broadly to uncontrolled populations and contexts.
I struggle to trust studies of behavior when they research a specific population in a controlled context, and then generalize their claims too broadly to uncontrolled populations and contexts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
