Dear #rstats & #systematicreview Twitter friends: I've been working hard on the {metabefor} R package these past weeks. I'll explain a bit more in the thread, but first, my question.
This is the current version of the logo.
(poll with question in thread)
What does this logo evoke?
Mar 8, 2019 • 32 tweets • 25 min read
@Heinonmatti@NHankonen It seems roughly right, but I'd nuance it by emphasizing that this is not about proof; it's more like an underlying ('meta' if you will) belief in progress: that changes and adjustments in theory are generally towards truth/reality, not random or systematically away from it.
@Heinonmatti@NHankonen It's not about proving that there's some truth to what I say. It about arguing that the method I use to determine waht I hold as truth (and say) is bound ('proven') to lead to truth eventually. Which is more than anybody else ('non-scientists') can reasonably claim, I think.
Mar 1, 2019 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
@Heinonmatti What is 'it', here? Behavior Change (BC)? Well, I believe BC _can_ work - if you follow IM rigour, and then some.
But, the 'flavour' of exercising BC that has any chance of working is too complicated to ever be sellable.
What is sold (well), therefore, is the 'tricks' approach.
@Heinonmatti Nudging are an excellent example of this. The idea that you can have a list of BCTs that can be used to change behavior, is a more sophisticated version (you know where I stand in this respect; see e.g. 'as simple as possible').
