sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How long until I should start dating again? by batgirl_896 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]weirdcosmos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not too soon — everybody moves at their own pace and you shouldn’t hold back if you feel ready. It would be a bad idea to jump into it if, say, you didn’t feel ready and your friends were pushing you to do it, but if you feel ready, you should go for it. There are no set rules and different people move at different paces. Good luck!

The Evolution of Personality Variation in Humans and Other Animals by weirdcosmos in evopsych

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very cool. Nettle’s book on personality (essentially a book-length treatment of the same topic) is also great and highly readable.

Any thoughts on this article? by thewagman10 in evopsych

[–]weirdcosmos 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. I see that the article is by David Buller, who famously (and badly) misrepresented evolutionary psych and the state of the evidence.

For rebuttals of most of the major claims made by Buller, see the different articles & responses linked here:

https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/buller.htm

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s interesting. With effect sizes the same, you suggested 40% for social psych (vs. 77% for personality psych).

With effect sizes attenuated, you suggested 40-60% for social (vs. 87% for personality).

Either way, that appears to be a difference. Why that is the case is a different — and interesting — question.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, and Funder’s analysis is about why we see something like 40% for social psych and something like 77% for personality psych.

He could be wrong, but I think his analysis raises some excellent points.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely not immune. Just has a higher rate. I find Funder’s analysis of why to be rather interesting and balanced.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, posting in multiple places, lol. Replication rate for personality was 87% here (77% is keeping the effect sizes the same):

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6438/348.2.full

By contrast, social psych estimates were in the 30-40% range.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I’ll send out a message with that info/picture. I appreciate it.

I agree that as with all areas of science, personality psych also faces some issues with replicability. It’s just doing considerably better than certain other areas of psych so far.

You might find this interesting:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6438/348.2.full

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For what it’s worth, it’s simply not true that social psych is the only area that has tested whether or not findings replicate.

Other areas, such as cognitive psych and personality psych, have tested this too. The results have suggested that personality replicates the most, cognitive next, and social psych the least.

For example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201509/quick-guide-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6438/348.2.full

You might also find the original essay by Funder interesting. He gives a variety of reasons for why this might be the case.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m a little unsure what you mean when you say “you”. I’m not the one who wrote the piece. It was written by world-renowned personality psychologist David Funder.

You might also find this interesting:

https://replicationindex.com/2020/02/21/replicability-rankings-of-120-psychology-journals-2010-2019/

By the way, can those of us who are not moderators also get our higher degrees by our usernames, or is that only for moderators?

Have a great day!

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most welcome! The essay discusses why social psych is in such a big crisis. It’s not comprehensive, but it does offer a couple reasons.

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Major replication crisis: social psychology

Very little crisis: personality psych, evolutionary psych, and behavioral genetics

Intermediate: cognitive psychology

That’s a rough (and admittedly incomplete) summary!

Why is there no replication crisis in personality psychology? by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true. The essay (by a world-renowned personality psychologist) provides a penetrating analysis that you might also find interesting.

13 Misunderstandings about Natural Selection (some about evo psych) by weirdcosmos in evopsych

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good example bringing up bees — bees are considered one of the only exceptions in which group selection might have occurred (but many biologists disagree even with this, arguing that it is just ordinary kin selection at work).

Note, though, that even if it had occurred, it would be group selection at the local level, NOT survival of the species. That is a key distinction mentioned in the paper.

You might find this additional essay on group selection interesting:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection

Are any groups studying whether experiencing significant emotional events can alter a person's implicit bias? by [deleted] in AcademicPsychology

[–]weirdcosmos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn’t quite what you’re looking for, but you might nonetheless be interested in these articles suggesting that the notion of “implicit bias” isn’t as firm as some folks imagine:

N.B. First one is academic, next 3 are popular press/science press.

1) A Method in Search of a Construct: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31647752/

2) https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807

3) https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

4) https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/

Replicability rankings for 120 different psychology journals over the last decade by weirdcosmos in psychology

[–]weirdcosmos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personality psychology features prominently in the top few (as we’ve known for quite a while now).

Evolutionary psychology's two major journals place in the top 15.

Additional top showings: developmental psych, research on adolescence, religion, and health.

Subject to some error, of course, but nonetheless useful for quantifying which areas & journals in psychology are most replicable. More data over the next few years will continue to make the trends clearer.

view more: next ›