I don’t think it’s a “MASSIVE” step back to say that ST has different kinds of effects on affect, cognition & behavior. Performance on tests should be only one thing.
But one must agree that performance is what attracted people to the phenomenon and is key to why people care in the outside world.
Not sure who’s claiming that. Raven’s prog. matrices are just 1 (kinda oddball) performance DV. Small effects are effects.
The phenomenon is so obviously “situated” and contextual that very specific theory is needed (about context) and studies need to meet these criteria.
“. . . of your* lifetime.”
*Conditions apply. Does not apply if born after noon, EDT, January 19, 1989 (must be 37 or younger).
Every one of those are in my lifetime.
Are you thinking only youngsters read this? I’ve got Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and even Reagan.
Murdering the spirit of Kurt Lewin.
That’s all, folks! Thank you to everyone who joined us for the SPSP 2026 Annual Convention. You made #SPSP2026 unforgettable.
Safe travels home!
The 2026 Presidential Symposium at #SPSP2026 will feature Eran Halperin on doing research amid atrocity and Rebecca Covarrubias witness and resistance in higher education. 🧪
It's happening! #SPSP2026 virtual preconferences kick off today, covering topics from misinformation science to existential psychology to open science reform.
Check out the agenda here: https://ow.ly/ry8A50YkpUy
Are you joining us? Share what you're attending! 👇
“Church,” I know.
Galileo defied the Church’s requirement of modesty (according to scientific norms of the time AND today), and it was for this he was punished.
Once the physics of optics was worked out, his data could be considered reliable.
Yes. He was persecuted because the Chirch, following the prevailing standards of scientific inference, required him to present his position tentatively, as a speculative theory, not an established fact. Lacking a theory of optics, how telescopes worked—or if they worked—was up in the air (😉).
I think you need to read "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend. He upends traditional thinking about the Church and Galileo, based on a reading of the historical record.
Here's a 🧵 connecting a number of Mark Rubin's contributions on p-hacking and statistical inference as connected to one's philosophy of science.
Under differing regimes, p-hacking and preregistration can have large or small or no consequence for scientific inferences.
I was never tested. But if some rich dude said my work was really important, that he’d like to help fund it, would I go on a private jet to a conference with Pinjer and Chomsky and Kosslyn?, man I would need to remember to do a Google search of the guy.
It’s also possible he only responded to males. Both plausible hypotheses. But the former seems right.
Wait until you get older. Standard neuro assessment. After five decades, it’s back.
Lets imagine that I was doing my bit for the students?
Making philosophy possible?
🤷♂️
I taught four courses for UF, full-time, 300 students each, $28,500.
GASP, the GLBTQ+ Alliance in Social and Personality Psychology is sponsoring a mentoring lunch with a TERRIFIC group of mentors at the SPSP Meeting on Friday, Feb 27. Take a look here:
www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0C4EAB...
🪶📜 = poetic license emoji.
I agree. I was simply responding to the “there’s no universe where this makes causal sense.” It’s not unimaginable.
Which is not evidence in favor of it, of course.
Low-to-zero has least health benefits, modest has higher benefits, too much involves loss of benefit to direct harm.
Sodium intake has this shape.
That’s more straightforward, for sure.
If you want to make a philosophical or scientific argument, you should make it.
You’re simply saying that you’ve got different epistemic commitments which preclude the acceptance of “western psychology.” OK by me, but why use exaggerations of the “replication crisis” to make your point? It’s superfluous.
OK. “Probably turn out to be” is the same as “more likely than not” or even stronger. And no matter the case, it’s almost certainly objectively incorrect (if you allow “objectively” to be a meaningful concept).
The intent of your words seems to be to cast serious doubt. I disagreed.
There are always moderators in psych. Some are hidden.
It’s only that the talk be *responsible,* as suppression of all moderator talk would be scientifically irresponsible and suppressive.
They need to be plausible, and to be taken seriously, must have some supportive data.
This is just ill-informed. “All claims unfounded”? Like effects of categorization, chunking, schedules of reinforcement, social comparison and conformity, acquisition of language, and the like?
A scientist should use language carefully.
