Thread IV: The Social Sciences are a Mess, Including But Not Restricted to Psych Science, and It Includes But Goes Well Beyond The Replication Crisis (in general, and not just for things political-see other threads for those).
My very 1st PsychToday blog: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
No, they don't. My blog is from 2012 psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Paper on right just came out.
You (could have) heard it here first.
This one is spot on, but its also dangerous.
It is NOT an argument to believe in conspiracy theories or data analysis by your libertarian uncle who knows a little stat.
Its more like "treat scientists' with deep skepticism." psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Why skepticism about psych science? Here are a SLEW of resources, of veritable bibliography of SCIENTIFIC sources critiquing scientific findings and processes. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
If you have read the recent Perspectives on Psych Science special issue on microaggressions, you KNOW this is true: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
I cannot tell you how many times I have been told:
Not to call my colleagues hypocrites
I would have so much more influence if only I had a better "tone"
It is me, not they, who are biased.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
I mean, if "self-correction" is some of what gives science its credibility and status, then they should love being corrected, right?
😉
If you follow science reformers, you know answers include:
sampling, generalizing, theorizing, statistics, and applying academic findings to the real world. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
An actual undergrad syllabus for exposing students to these sorts of issues. When I have done this, they have loved this course. #livedexperience (and high course evals). psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
In honor of this stupidity, I thread here an incomplete list of the White administrators and faculty at elite U's that have been forced out for: 1. Ethics violations 2. No ethics violation at all.
🧵
Its worth remembering that, whether or not they "defended" firings, they denied that "cancel culture" was a thing and *justified* punishing targets & *implemented* firings, suspensions & retracting papers) with variations of "look how evil that person is."
🧵w/receipts.
First, the firings. When possible, I purposely chose some of the most obvious glorification of the firings. Like here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
David Shor, fired for Tweeting a peer reviewed sociology article showing that peaceful protests are more effective than violent ones at persuading people. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Dear Aidan,
Please explain how this ad is NOT in violation of U.S. and Washington DC (where APA, the society sponsoring this journal, is housed) laws prohibiting discrimination based on race.
🧵 ending in END.
The ad, shown in full above, includes:
"In service of APA's commitment to EDI... APA Publishing's fellowship program seeks to elevate leadership opportunities for ECP's (early career psychologists) from communities that have been historically underrepresented..." It explains:
"Such individuals include, but are not limited to, psychologists who are Black, Indigenous, or other people of color and ethnicities..."
Introducing the new Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences. And we mean "new" not just "another." 1/2
Spread the word to those who pub behavioral sciences.
@lakens @CJFerguson1111 @MattGrossmann @JukkaSavo @JonHaidt @peterboghossian @a_m_mastroianni, @RickCarlsson @CHSommers @chrisdc77 @profyancey @ImHardcory @yorl @minzlicht @MarcusCrede @sociologyWV @primalpoly @SteveStuWill
Also, @HSJSpeaks, @lastpositivist, @Docstockk, @olivertraldi (note to philosophers: We currently have a paper under review by Holly Lawford-Smith). Journal practices inspired by @jon_rauch. @StuartJRitchie (see top tws⬆️).
THREAD
Academia continues to embarass itself. Paper retracted for absurd concocted reason (way worse than "technicality"). wsj.com/articles/medic…
1/n
From the WSJ article:
"While the respondents consented to the publication of the survey’s results, Springer insists they didn’t specifically agree to publication in a scholarly or peer-reviewed journal. That’s a strange and retrospective requirement" 2/n
How this works now -- see @JukkaSavo's thread and paper:
Unequal Treatment Under the Flaw,
on why retractions are no longer for fraud, they are in response to activists who identify flaws that are never used to retract papers that don't piss off activists.
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford If anyone is "looking for" ways to be concerned, they sure don't need to look very hard. Reply 🧵
1/n.
The initiative clearly is at Stanford & whole pt of "initiative" is to persuade others to adopt, well, what shall we call this?
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford Steelman: "New norms for inclusive language."
Alternative view: "Language policing."
Why? Because of widespread *enforcement* of these "new norms" through punishments.