Author Archives: pigee

The most courageous act a modern academic can make is to say they were wrong.  After all, we deal in ideas, not things.  When we say we were wrong, we are saying our ideas, our products so to speak, were … Continue reading →

Scientific research is an attempt to identify a working truth about the world that is as independent of ideology as possible.  As we appear to be entering a time of heightened skepticism about the value of scientific information, we feel … Continue reading →

Some of you might have missed the kerfuffle that erupted in the last few days over a pre-print of an editorial written by Susan Fiske for the APS Monitor about us “methodological terrorists”.  Andrew Gelman’s blog reposts Fiske’s piece, puts … Continue reading →

The following is a hypothetical exchange between a graduate student and Professor Belfry-Roaster.  The names have been changed to protect the innocent…. Budlie Bond: Professor Belfry-Roaster I was confused today in journal club when everyone started discussing power.  I’ve taken … Continue reading →

  It has been unsettling to witness the seemingly endless stream of null effects emerging from numerous pre-registered direct replications over the past few months. Some of the outcomes were unsurprising given the low power of the original studies. But … Continue reading →

One of the most provocative requests in the reproducibility crisis was Daniel Kahneman’s call for psychological scientists to collaborate on a “daisy chain” of research replication. He admonished proponents of priming research to step up and work together to replicate … Continue reading →

What follows below is the result of an online discussion I had with psychologists Michael Kraus (MK) and Michael Frank (MF). We discussed scale construction, and particularly, whether items with two response options (i.e., Yes v. No) are good or bad … Continue reading →

by Brent W. Roberts A paper on one of the most important research projects in our generation came out a few weeks ago. I’m speaking, of course, of the Reproducibility Project conducted by several hundred psychologists. It is a tour … Continue reading →

Last week, we read Chabris et al (2015) The fourth law of behavior genetics another in a series of lucid papers from the GWAS consortium. This week, with Etienne LeBel in town, we are reading the OSF’s Reproducibility Report.

by Brent W. Roberts One of the conspicuous features of the ongoing reproducibility crisis stewing in psychology is that we have a lot of fear, loathing, defensiveness, and theorizing being expressed about direct replications. But, if the pages of our … Continue reading →