In press: "The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big Team Science"

Link: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36190899/
Ungated: psyarxiv.com/2mdxh/

We argue the challenges in psych have a common cause, insufficient investment of resources, & argue "big team science" can solve these challenges

🧵 We also review different barriers and risks of the adoption of big team science and analyze different strategies to address these barriers and risks

This fascinating paper distinguishes between two spheres of science:

-academic, governed by prestige for public knowledge disclosure;
-technological, governed by money derived from secret knowledge

However, a puzzle: my field has no well-developed field of “technology”!

🧵

https://twitter.com/ct_bergstrom/status/1219916625375219712

The paper offers no clear guidance about what would happen in such a field. I’m not sure either but I have some speculations based on what I think technology does for science as a whole.

1. A technological arm of a field creates pressure for research to “work”

On the recommendation of @ivanflis, I’m reading “The Scientific Journal”, a history of how journals came to serve the roles of repositories disseminators, and guardians of scientific knowledge. I’ll be collecting interesting tidbits in this thread 🧵 press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book… Prior to the nineteenth century, “journals” were more like periodicals reporting news. Modern journals originated in the nineteenth century

For the past week or two, I’ve been mulling over this fascinating paper on the historical origins of open science. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

I think it has a lot to teach meta-scientists. However, it’s long and abstruse. This is my attemp to make the content more accessible 🧵 David starts with the following question: why should scientists make their knowledge public?

Although public knowledge might accumulate more rapidly than private knowledge, the *institution* of public knowledge is pretty weird and rare, historically

.@NourKteily and I have just posted a major update to our working paper on the alt-right. The paper now includes a nationally representative sample, which allows us to estimate the alt-right's prevalence & demographics as well as their psychology.

A few additional thoughts ... We posted the original version of this paper in August 2017. We relied on mTurk recruitment in that original paper and received some incisive criticism from @ScottClif on that point

In press with @CalvinKLai, @jordanaxt, @CharlieEbersole, Michelle Herman, @DevineLab, and @BrianNosek : "A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures" psyarxiv.com/dv8tu/

This is a huge project & I have lots of thoughts about it. I discuss some below

[THREAD] Implicit bias is frequently invoked as a way to understanding social problems, especially disparities between social groups. However, social disparities are not the only area: there's a burgeoning literature applying the concepts of implicit bias to addiction

#ML2 (psyarxiv.com/9654g) has got me thinking about the following thesis: Over the past ~20 odd years (or longer), social psychologists have grossly underestimated how hard it is for people to change Let me state up front that this thesis is not new. I'm also not sure that social psychologists actually *believe* that people are easy to change. Nevertheless, the assumption of changeability underlies a lot of social psychology research from the past ~20-30 years

I noticed an interesting post by Phil Zimbardo this morning on the Stanford Prison Experiment via the @SPSPnews listserv There's also a new notice if you go to prisonexp.org. It's good that he's directing people to both criticisms and responses, though I find it quite odd that Zimbardo continues to use the term "bloggers" to describe the critics

In wake of the reaction to the preprint (psyarxiv.com/r2xvb) released by me, @ScienceCox, @brauerlab1, and @DevineLab, I have a few thoughts on scientific criticism and culture First, I want to acknowledge that the preprint received a lot of useful, constructive criticism. For example, this thread by @NIH_Bear is both thoughtful and useful. It will certainly help us improve the next version of our paper

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @NIH_Bear view original on Twitter