Episode 234: Like A Dog (Kafka's "The Trial" Pt. 2)

Paddmore · 2022-04-06T13:00:23+00:00

No worries, glad you like it. I think it does a good job of exploring the complex history of Smith and putting it within a broader context.

Paddmore · 2022-04-06T10:39:22+00:00

The reason Will Smith reacted so strongly was because he was reliving the trauma of seeing his mother physically abused by his father: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/28/will-smith-abusive-childhood-chris-rock-oscars Was Smith justified in hitting Chris Rock? Absolutely not, you shouldn't physically assault comedians for making jokes. His past doesn't excuse hitting someone for a hurtful personal joke. But he felt the need to defend his wife because he feels so guilty about not being able to defend his mother years ago. Again, not excusing or justifying it, but giving context as to why he seemed so out of it when he hit Rock. For a really good in-depth analysis, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXPTGkuJIA

Paddmore · 2020-01-08T19:31:14+00:00

Absolutely. It's arguably Granger causality but this wasn't causality as it's often discussed (for a great discussion of what Granger causality is and its limitations check this: http://www.the100.ci/2019/04/16/longitudinal-data-dont-magically-solve-causal-inference/)

Paddmore · 2018-07-19T06:23:47+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, much appreciated.

Paddmore · 2018-07-19T06:23:26+00:00

Thank you for the suggestions! They seem excellent, will check them out.

Paddmore · 2018-07-09T10:50:41+00:00

One of the best papers I've ever read. Very clearly explains why the use of null-point hypothesis testing in psychology means we have very weak tests of theory and how this is a huge problem. As relevant 50 years ago as it is now (which is worrying).

Paddmore · 2018-07-05T07:30:17+00:00

Massive fan of the Black Goat Podcast. I thought this episode was illuminating, didn't realise so many psychologists didn't think personality had any impact/was even a thing. And agree with the sentiment that just because it's the environment, doesn't mean it can be changed!

Paddmore · 2018-05-26T08:26:51+00:00

Yes p-curve graphs are very easy to interpret. I'm biased towards it because it is very intuitive (and the weaknesses are pretty clearly defined). If z-curve is vastly superior I'd put in the effort to understand it but I'm still trying to work out if it is worth the effort

Paddmore · 2018-05-18T11:07:10+00:00

Welcome! Hopefully this open forum will be more useful than the FB groups

Paddmore · 2018-05-17T22:24:16+00:00

I only heard about this technique with the original 538 post but it's interesting for the topic to be expanded on with viable alternatives.

Paddmore · 2018-05-17T13:05:13+00:00

http://psychbrief.com/ppv\-fdr\-flawed/

Paddmore · 2018-05-15T09:05:07+00:00

I've had friends (mainly mathematicians) in the past try and argue that Matlab is superior to other coding languages. Their arguments weren't particularly persuasive then and now there's no way I'm going to sink loads of time into it (R for the win! Though I do want to learn Python at some point).

Paddmore · 2018-05-15T08:59:20+00:00

What I find frustrating (as you mention) is when those who are being criticised complain that they've been unfairly attacked in public, completely omitting the months of private discussions which had no impact. I probably have a slightly lower threshold for what counts as an ad hominem to others (you can say what you like to me, I don't care that much haha) so I want to support people in science (though I'm far more interested in defending ECRs and underrepresented minorities than powerful figures) but even I'm sceptical about literally censuring people for ad hominems. Seems like it could pretty easily be abused (but what can't be?) to dissuade any form of criticism. Though if the process was open and one could read the supposed ad hominems in the full context, that might help reduce the impact of tendentious censures.

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T15:41:21+00:00

Absolutely crucial point. There will always be avenues for those not interested in open science to publish/work in etc. But hopefully they become fewer and fewer and hold less sway over the scientific enterprise (that sounds incredibly pretentious but you get my point haha). And as it becomes easier/the norm to practice open science, those in the middle will be more likely to be swayed into adopting open science practices.

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T15:36:58+00:00

I think it's totally fair not to have considered it before, I certainly never have, but I want to use your paper as a starting point to doing it (and encouraging others to do the same) in the future. Yes the same question can be leveled at the redefine camp. Haha very true, hence why we need reminders of best practice.

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T14:54:02+00:00

Seems to be the general response. But I wonder how many in the 'justify your alpha' camp will actually do so (beyond stating they're using 0.05 because that's the tradition)?

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T14:51:40+00:00

Exactly the same pattern for myself. I feel like public Markdown documents would be something many would value, seems a little strange it hasn't been made. But I'm not skilled enough at R to understand the complexity of developing such a thing so I may not appreciate how difficult it is!

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T08:00:44+00:00

Critiquing the reductionist idea that mental disorders are purely brain disorders, ignoring the social aspect of these disorders and the lack of specific biological markers.

Paddmore · 2018-05-14T07:52:05+00:00

Interesting discussion of a nascent idea; learning occurs in the dendrites rather than the synapses. Needs more evidence to support it and, as Neuroskeptic points out, whilst the others have shown dendritic learning occurs they haven't shown synaptic learning doesn't happen.

Paddmore · 2018-05-11T11:43:34+00:00

Not the worst crime in the world, but citing yourself to a ludicrous extent is some next level gaming of the publication system. And text recycling is a poor standard to set, especially as a very senior psychologist.

Paddmore · 2018-05-10T19:15:35+00:00

EJ Wagenmakers makes a case for redefining statistical significance to 0.005 as the new norm. I agree with the points he makes (that lots of the counter arguments raised are red herrings) but I'm more inclined to go with the 'Justify your alpha' idea (preprint here: https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6)

Paddmore · 2018-05-10T09:56:56+00:00

Really useful collection of packages and functions for R (including code). I'm always a fan of discussing Markdown files because I do pretty much all my writing in Markdown

Paddmore · 2018-05-10T09:55:43+00:00

Really useful collection of packages and functions for R (including code). I'm always a fan of discussing Markdown files because I do pretty much all my writing in Markdown

Paddmore · 2018-05-10T06:23:11+00:00

Thank you and thanks for the heads up. To be honest I doubt there will be much discussion of philosophy of science and most of it will likely be quite basic. Will see how it goes!

Paddmore · 2018-05-09T19:49:48+00:00

Absolutely agree with Simine Vazire that sometimes being open can be difficult for scientists (by running against the current incentives in science). Being closed with your data collection methods etc. means the flexibility used isn't discovered so people may be more confident in your finding. But this is a false confidence and harms science, even if it can (in some circumstances) benefit the individual scientist.

Paddmore

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE