The popularity of brief interventions intended to enhance some form of capacity, be it brain training or growth mindset, doesn't seem to dampen with mounting stacks of failed replications. Why do the myths persist despite contradictory evidence? IMHO this comes down to 3 factors: 1/ First, there typically is an appeal to common sense, with arguments based on what is assumed to be obvious or common sense to everyone, even though the assumptions may not hold up under scrutiny:

🧠🧵 In the field of psychology, measurement is essential for understanding human behavior. But are we measuring the right things? A partial, most definitely biased overview of recent contributions worth knowing about For starters: using the example of well-being research, Alexandrova & Haybron argue that the practice of construct validation is theory avoidant, and favors a narrow focus on statistical tests while largely ignoring relevant philosophical considerations doi.org/10.1086/687941

Overwhelming evidence that Growth Mindset is not as advertised. Many will be disappointed that this purported ‘great equalizer’ isn’t real. But once we stop to consider what else would have to be true for GM theory to hold, the reality doesn’t sound too bad anymore…🧵

https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1579892931397554177

For context: The basic tenet of GM theory is that mindset can be changed via simple, brief interventions focused on praise and effort, and that these changes (usually toward a more ‘growy’ mindset) will lead to a wealth of positive effects, such as better school grades

R is quickly becoming the tool of choice for data analysis in science. Lists of excellent resources to learn #rstats have been compiled in multiple places (I will mention here the amazing work of @djnavarro @MattCrump_ and of course @hadleywickham , links below) 1/6 learningstatisticswithr.com
crumplab.github.io/statistics/
adv-r.had.co.nz 2/6