Posts Tagged ‘ Zombies ’

“The Dark Side of Power Posing”

July 23, 2016
By

Shravan points us to this post from Jay Van Bavel a couple years ago. It’s an interesting example because Bavel expresses skepticism about the “power pose” hype but he makes the same general mistake of Carney, Cuddy, Yap, and other researchers in this area in that he overreacts to every bit of noise that’s been […] The post “The Dark Side of Power Posing” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal…

Read more »

No, Google will not “sway the presidential election”

July 19, 2016
By

Grrr, this is annoying. A piece of exaggerated science reporting hit PPNAS and was promoted in Politico, then Kaiser Fung and I shot it down (“Could Google Rig the 2016 Election? Don’t Believe the Hype”) in our Daily Beast column last September. Then it appeared again this week in a news article in the Christian […] The post No, Google will not “sway the presidential election” appeared first on Statistical…

Read more »

Moving statistical theory from a “discovery” framework to a “measurement” framework

July 18, 2016
By

Avi Adler points to this post by Felix Schönbrodt on “What’s the probability that a significant p-value indicates a true effect?” I’m sympathetic to the goal of better understanding what’s in a p-value (see for example my paper with John Carlin on type M and type S errors) but I really don’t like the framing […] The post Moving statistical theory from a “discovery” framework to a “measurement” framework appeared…

Read more »

I know you guys think I have no filter, but . . .

July 13, 2016
By

. . . Someone sent me a juicy bit of news related to one of our frequent blog topics, and I shot back a witty response (or, at least, it seemed witty to me), but I decided not to post it here because I was concerned that people might take it as a personal attack […] The post I know you guys think I have no filter, but . .…

Read more »

“Participants reported being hungrier when they walked into the café (mean = 7.38, SD = 2.20) than when they walked out [mean = 1.53, SD = 2.70, F(1, 75) = 107.68, P < 0.001]."

July 8, 2016
By
“Participants reported being hungrier when they walked into the café (mean = 7.38, SD = 2.20) than when they walked out [mean = 1.53, SD = 2.70, F(1, 75) = 107.68, P < 0.001]."

E. J. Wagenmakers points me to a delightful bit of silliness from PPNAS, “Hunger promotes acquisition of nonfood objects,” by Alison Jing Xu, Norbert Schwarz, and Robert Wyer. It has everything we’re used to seeing in this literature: small-N, between-subject designs, comparisons of significant to non-significant, and enough researcher degrees of freedom to buy Uri […] The post “Participants reported being hungrier when they walked into the café (mean =…

Read more »

Gremlins in the work of Amy J. C. Cuddy, Michael I. Norton, and Susan T. Fiske

July 5, 2016
By
Gremlins in the work of Amy J. C. Cuddy, Michael I. Norton, and Susan T. Fiske

Remember that “gremlins” paper by environmental economist Richard Tol? The one that had almost as many errors as data points? The one where, each time a correction was issued, more problems would spring up? (I’d say “hydra-like” but I’d rather not mix my mythical-beast metaphors.) Well, we’ve got another one. This time, nothing to do […] The post Gremlins in the work of Amy J. C. Cuddy, Michael I. Norton,…

Read more »

Should this paper in Psychological Science be retracted? The data do not conclusively demonstrate the claim, nor do they provide strong evidence in favor. The data are, however, consistent with the claim (as well as being consistent with no effect)

June 28, 2016
By
Should this paper in Psychological Science be retracted?  The data do not conclusively demonstrate the claim, nor do they provide strong evidence in favor.  The data are, however, consistent with the claim (as well as being consistent with no effect)

Retractions or corrections of published papers are rare. We routinely encounter articles with fatal flaws, but it is so rare that such articles are retracted that it’s news when it happens. Retractions sometimes happen at the request of the author (as in the link above, or in my own two retracted/corrected articles) and other times […] The post Should this paper in Psychological Science be retracted? The data do not…

Read more »

When are people gonna realize their studies are dead on arrival?

June 26, 2016
By
When are people gonna realize their studies are dead on arrival?

A comment at Thomas Lumley’s blog pointed me to this discussion by Terry Burnham with an interesting story of some flashy psychology research that failed to replicate. Here’s Burnham: [In his popular book, psychologist Daniel] Kahneman discussed an intriguing finding that people score higher on a test if the questions are hard to read. The […] The post When are people gonna realize their studies are dead on arrival? appeared…

Read more »

It comes down to reality and it’s fine with me cause I’ve let it slide

June 23, 2016
By
It comes down to reality and it’s fine with me cause I’ve let it slide

E. J. Wagenmakers pointed me to this recent article by Roy Baumeister, who writes: Patience and diligence may be rewarded, but competence may matter less than in the past. Getting a significant result with n = 10 often required having an intuitive flair for how to set up the most conducive situation and produce a […] The post It comes down to reality and it’s fine with me cause I’ve…

Read more »

Clarke’s Law: Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud

June 20, 2016
By
Clarke’s Law:  Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud

The originals: Clarke’s first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Clarke’s second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into […] The post Clarke’s Law: Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud appeared first…

Read more »


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe