RT @Jikkyleaks: @stuartbuck1 @PaoloCrosetto @paulrconnor @rikirikiroo @alexandrosM @NMLLPLaw @ShotsHeard @andre_quentin So, now you are lin…
RT @Jikkyleaks: @stuartbuck1 @PaoloCrosetto @paulrconnor @rikirikiroo @alexandrosM @NMLLPLaw @ShotsHeard @andre_quentin So, now you are lin…
RT @Jikkyleaks: @stuartbuck1 @PaoloCrosetto @paulrconnor @rikirikiroo @alexandrosM @NMLLPLaw @ShotsHeard @andre_quentin So, now you are lin…
@stuartbuck1 @PaoloCrosetto @paulrconnor @rikirikiroo @alexandrosM @NMLLPLaw @ShotsHeard @andre_quentin So, now you are linked to DARPA through grants. A few hours ago that was a "conspiracy theory". It seems to be a common theme in the psychology field.
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/78NSq4y1iB
@Luciuski31 Vamos, que no conseguiste timarle con tu vudú chamánico, ESTAFADORA https://t.co/zqi66sNr8f
@wille_bart Agree. When journals require every paper to be a vertical leap, they end up publishing a lot of p-hacked crap (but exciting crap!) Surprising results are less likely to replicate: https://t.co/2GGfONOk9i
@Skz_Aramat @la__lanterne @starmaxblue Pas vraiment. https://t.co/7r16sqRUFX
https://t.co/8a9miqxYhi Ta sice opravdu nezvládla replikovat velké procento efektů psychologických studií, sami autoři ale při zmiňování limitů svého designu zmiňují, že: https://t.co/l6fUpB9s3o
RT @sunsopeningband: A little intellectual humility is always a good idea when we think about thinking. https://t.co/UVC2WEudRm
A little intellectual humility is always a good idea when we think about thinking. https://t.co/UVC2WEudRm
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
Spreuk van de dag: "Scientific claims should not gain credence because of the status or authority of their originator but by the replicability of their supporting evidence."
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
100%
RT @jan_choutka: Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more…
Reminder: more than half of studies in leading psychology journals could not be replicated. What does it mean? It is more reasonable to not trust psychology research than to trust it. https://t.co/CYmYUWrd75
Die meisten von euch kennen das Reproducibility-Project. Die Open Science Collaboration hat 2015 diesen lesenswerten Artikel veröffentlicht: https://t.co/ZEr13UirKp
@Great_Briton_I @jasonpaisley @barlow2021 @hodgetwins @RobertKennedyJr @DrAseemMalhotra @RWMaloneMD @ClareCraigPath Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://t.co/cnS04
@Eran_Efrat דוגמא קלאסית לאימרה שקורלציה היא לא סיבתיות. ודוגמא קלאסית למשתנה מושמט שמתואם עם משתנה מסביר ומוסבר. אגב, בעשור האחרון ענף הפסיכולוגיה (ולא רק) חווה משבר עצום של חוסר יכולת לשחזר ניסויים. הנה דוגמא קלאסית. מאמר שהצליח לשחר רק 36 מ-100 מחקרים פ
@MdtvieiraS @ProfGontijo No Brasil tem estudos teóricos, recomendo esse: https://t.co/5Zp2HlT0EW sobre AEC e https://t.co/MOY6wIfCGv sobre Psicanálise Fora do BR tem MTOS artigos, segue um exemplo: https://t.co/Nucmh1HOKD
RT @AlisonHeapeJohn: Love this quote on replication: "Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are…
RT @AlisonHeapeJohn: Love this quote on replication: "Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are…
Love this quote on replication: "Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely; progress relies on both." - Open Science Collaboration (thanks @JonathanLWai for having us read this for class!) https://t.co/HOX
@CubeSteve @Utterly_Jean @NonliberalE @AWULWarrior @Danny__Spring @in_the_sky34221 @gmack227 @Kathlee85952903 @Shama1Singh @prolifenanaki23 The "random blog" referenced a source from (https://t.co/EQ9nywKUtp) which itself has over 40 sources
@NateJoseph19 Maybe this: https://t.co/aSu0I0Oymj? Not necessarily evidence of bias—could just be evidence that lucky experiments are more likely to get published...
Studies in the psychological sciences do not replicate well. What results do you trust? https://t.co/yjhVxzchOx
@paulbloomatyale It is striking that the two biggest discoveries that come to mind of the last two decades are negative ones. I.e., many past psych "discoveries" were found to be: 1) ungeneralizable (https://t.co/gdsmzGlXlu), and 2) unreplicable (https://
@giulicast @UgoMorelli @RobertaPaliotti @colvieux @unvermouth @BersaniLeda @Ginestra21 @LaMerlettaia @GranataElena @cristinamucciol Quanto sono affidabili e riproducibili gli studi scientifici di psicologia? Poco, circa per il 40% https://t.co/YvcobsfcQ3
"An ideological response would discount the arguments, discredit the sources, and proceed merrily along. The scientific process is not ideological. " 結論に書いてあるこの一節が心に響いた
2015年の論文で面白いものを見つけた 心理学の論文100本の追試実験を行ったところ, 統計学的に再現性があると判断できたものは40にも満たなかったそうだ 心理学研究の再現性については以前から問題視されてきたが, それを可視化することの重要性だよな https://t.co/9lMKLEScUL
@LauraSockol There are a number of papers that came out of this. Eg https://t.co/uWy8qbwlVN
@jeremy_royaux Je suis prêt à le croire (sincèrement), mais as-tu par exemple sous la main des réplications pré-enregistrées qui ont pu établir la robustesse des phénomènes ? Des grandes entreprises de réplications des données publiées (type https://t.co/g
@danwilliamsphil @briandavidearp Report on Brian Nosek's reproducibility project https://t.co/DqQNbszz0o
@CoralieBorel @SenseurFR Ya un lien dans l'article. https://t.co/A5d8epupGK Mais je te le donne, comme ca c'est tout cuit.
Im Bild seht ihr die Ergebnisse: Nur 36 dieser 100 Effekte konnten nochmals gezeigt werden!🙅♀️ Für ganz Interessierte hier der Link zum Forschungsartikel: https://t.co/1wYCrfGKZL https://t.co/DqilnM58jA
@HelmutLaughs @wil_da_beast630 No, but I do. Here, I'll help you out - read (this one article of many others I can offer) so you can actually sound educated on this matter. You just sound emotional. https://t.co/Csp8PUlvla
@buttonslives @libsoftiktok The backslash to #Gender wars of woke sorcerer's apprentices, or #PoliticallyCorrect con artists of the marketing, is about accountability of "civil servants" abuse of power(for clientelism's #DarkMoney ) to exploit impunity
RT @kristinoster: Send an email to [email protected]">@ki.se">[email protected] or DM here. This is the paper for today, and we will read many more interesting pap…
2: The essay highlights the role of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology paper that appeared in 2015. I agree that the paper played an exemplar role in scholarly discussion and was a catalyst for change. $: https://t.co/EfELWoopez OA: https://t.co/tp4
Send an email to [email protected]">@ki.se">[email protected] or DM here. This is the paper for today, and we will read many more interesting papers in the future! https://t.co/ARMZhRqVwA
Is the glass half empty or half full? 60% success rate is also not THAT different than what is reported in more diligent replication research in economics (61%) https://t.co/yby8yN9JNm and psychology (33-50%) https://t.co/VHESZ5ey7J Yet, they are far less
@william_woof @chrislintott I think I'm happy (at least in psych/social science) saying "false", per the percentage of failed replications in Nosek et al https://t.co/qNFIMlN2Tl
@petesivey in social science, at least, a majority of papers do not replicate (or didn't in 2015, the situation may have improved https://t.co/UM6BldN6ia) and this was predicted several years before
RT @goando: 社会的プライミングに限らず、心理学の多くの研究が再現性の低さを指摘されています。(心理学の再現性危機) サイエンス誌による大規模な追試で、ハイランクとされる100の実験のうちオリジナルと同等の再現性が確認できた実験が僅か39%に留まるという事が確認され…
@Midogonpapa 以下が発端となった“Science”の論文、批判への批判の論文、さらにそれに対する批判の論文のアブストラクトのようです。 https://t.co/TGL5O6ru0R https://t.co/X59V2MyDDE https://t.co/yELFlPZhFv
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @ykamit: 2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
2013年のサイエンス論文↓で、有意な結果が再現された36%の一部 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/gczLaYh81k
RT @BorgerPieter: And binnen de geesteswetenschappen is vrijwel alles niet reproduceerbaar: https://t.co/MLoKAI9YMU En daarop heeft de sc…
RT @BorgerPieter: And binnen de geesteswetenschappen is vrijwel alles niet reproduceerbaar: https://t.co/MLoKAI9YMU En daarop heeft de sc…
And binnen de geesteswetenschappen is vrijwel alles niet reproduceerbaar: https://t.co/MLoKAI9YMU En daarop heeft de scientisme aanhangde westerse wereld zijn vertrouwen gezet? I trust God, not man.
@davelanger2k @dicov12 @biancaarlette https://t.co/UCBS8UvYxP in this paper they were only able to reproduce the results of 100 studies but were only able to do 39. Psychology is a low hanging fruit here because it's not a "hard science" I suggest you look
こちらの論文、#放送大学 #神経・生理心理学 で紹介されていて、後で読もうと思っていたもの。心理学実験の再現性に関する内容。アブスト読んだだけでも衝撃。 https://t.co/nQwGCp3wNZ
こちらの論文、#神経・生理心理学 で紹介されていて、読もうと思っていたもの。心理学実験の再現性の低さに関する内容。アブスト読んだだけでも衝撃。 https://t.co/nQwGCp3wNZ
@tomhschmidt There's an ongoing program called the Reproducibility Project to retests top psych experiments. Surprisingly not that bad: https://t.co/zjB3KMjl36
@wereflown @poluhohol @deal_with_god @kheikinend Я не говорю, что не существует особенностей, я говорю о том, что результаты исследований в других областях обычно прекрасно воспроизводятся при повторных экспериментах с соблюдением всех условий, а в психоло
😐*slides the link onto your screen to read at your discretion to understand more*. https://t.co/295el18FoG
認知心理学の論文の半数以上は正しく再現出来ない。なんていう論文もあります。 https://t.co/06LuHsGujg
RT @repTeaTokyo: 伝説的論文というのはこれ。Reproducibility Project: Psychologyです。 Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of…
伝説的論文というのはこれ。Reproducibility Project: Psychologyです。 Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://t.co/tk3uujz0Kk
ES: In psychological science, reproducibility was found to be around 36% - see: https://t.co/VKZSCZ7Fyb John Ioannidis even claimed: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/9X5VNbQDZp P-value, the chance that findings are true, is often
RT @sabrinagado: I asked my students to read the famous article "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" (https://t.co/YS…
RT @sabrinagado: I asked my students to read the famous article "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" (https://t.co/YS…
I asked my students to read the famous article "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" (https://t.co/YSh332nFsl) and summarize it in a social media post. I am thrilled with the result of Rieka Biethan and Friederike Feithen🤩🎉 https://t.c
@vagelysuicidal @TheGoatedOne @dannypowell67 @GoodwinMJ As long as you keep covering your own eyes it will surely sound as there beign no backbone to the claim that social sciences are unable to replicate their own findings, but the fact remains. https://t
Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science (2015) : Open Science Collaboration and others DOI: https://t.co/r97IGSW5C3 #decline_effect #meta_analysis #psychology #replication #reproduction_crisis #my_bibtex
@pgolshani One of my favorite examples of writing in psychology is the Science paper on reproducibility: https://t.co/URHIqW68jY Each method is introduced with a precise and clear explanation.
Especially #BehavioralSciences had been affected by the Replicability Crisis, such as #psychology, that is many effects could not be replicated. Causes of the crisis are manifold such as low statistical power, lack of theory, or publication bias. 👉 https:
@dnz75010 @BiketteClash @Un_EtreHumain @Ilan16ans A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistic
OSF project page: https://t.co/ydbdkOJN9t Book: https://t.co/E5TmJZgl2Y Science article: https://t.co/wJXysG0EwZ
@mr_botov И они все в психологию идут) ну реально, вопроизводима треть экспериментов - это точно наука?) https://t.co/TKnth5zN87
RT @BrianNosek: ICYMI: This is the conclusion of the #ReproducibilityProject original paper (https://t.co/fvrc3HqUNS): https://t.co/8Zu3aaM…
RT @FinRepro: Door 17 of the #AdventOfRepro calendar
RT @FinRepro: 1️⃣7️⃣🎄🎁 #AdventOfRepro Twitter Advent of #reproducibility calendar continues: “Replication success was better predicted by…
Door 17 of the #AdventOfRepro calendar
1️⃣7️⃣🎄🎁 #AdventOfRepro Twitter Advent of #reproducibility calendar continues: “Replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence” “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” https://t.co/P5S2PwjgJs (OA PDF: h
RT @stdebove: mais beaucoup sont rouges : ça veut dire que la réplication n’a pas pu confirmer la présence de l’effet original. À titre d…
RT @stdebove: mais beaucoup sont rouges : ça veut dire que la réplication n’a pas pu confirmer la présence de l’effet original. À titre d…
mais beaucoup sont rouges : ça veut dire que la réplication n’a pas pu confirmer la présence de l’effet original. À titre de comparaison, le même graphe pour les expériences de psychologie donnait (https://t.co/OEGUbIqQ9G) : https://t.co/oQoKiR71TN
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/W1sGycNfdU