@replicationindex.com
Pinned
Subjective Indicators of Well-Being: Life Satisfaction, Positive Affect, Negative Affect
Draft: 25/04/17 Abstract Subjective indicators of well-being have gained prominence as alternatives to purely economic or objective measures of quality of life. Among these, life satisfaction, posi…
replicationindex.com
Invitation to be a co-author on a caravan article on Subjective Wellbeing (SWB). Can we find some consensus about SWB, a keyword with thousands of citations, but a word with no scientific meaning? Here is a draft. Comment, contribute and get co-authorship.
replicationindex.com/2025/04/17/w...
replicationindex.com/2025/04/17/w...
Reposted
1/ The US Government has quietly removed a memorial to Black soldiers who died in World War II from the Netherlands American Cemetery in Margraten, South Limburg. The move follows a complaint from the right-wing Heritage Foundation to the American Battle Monuments Commission. ⬇️
November 9, 2025 at 9:23 AM
1/ The US Government has quietly removed a memorial to Black soldiers who died in World War II from the Netherlands American Cemetery in Margraten, South Limburg. The move follows a complaint from the right-wing Heritage Foundation to the American Battle Monuments Commission. ⬇️
They are not the same.
A recent paper suggests we stop using the terms Registered Report and preregistration. This is a very bad idea by my fellow metascientists. There is no way I am ever gonna drop 'Registered Reports' for 'Two-stage review with in principle acceptance'
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
November 10, 2025 at 8:25 PM
They are not the same.
How about distinguishing positive and negative impact.
IAT - huge citation impact, huge negative impact.
😀
IAT - huge citation impact, huge negative impact.
😀
Hu & Bentler (1999) with >130k citations selected for huge citation and moderate actual impact--see Nils' rationale that a lot of citation use is unthinking or to stop thinking.
What then is the prototype of prototypes for the moderate citation impact and moderate actual impact?
What then is the prototype of prototypes for the moderate citation impact and moderate actual impact?
November 10, 2025 at 8:24 PM
How about distinguishing positive and negative impact.
IAT - huge citation impact, huge negative impact.
😀
IAT - huge citation impact, huge negative impact.
😀
Reposted
Panorama made a stupid editing mistake. But compare this to the deliberate and systemic attempt, sustained across years, to ensure that BBC output aligns ever more closely to the demands of economic power. Against your straw of bias, I raise you a haystack.
November 10, 2025 at 6:00 AM
Panorama made a stupid editing mistake. But compare this to the deliberate and systemic attempt, sustained across years, to ensure that BBC output aligns ever more closely to the demands of economic power. Against your straw of bias, I raise you a haystack.
Reposted
Governor Gavin Newsom on Twitter a few moments ago
Regarding Democrat Senators who caved
Agree with you Governor 💯
Regarding Democrat Senators who caved
Agree with you Governor 💯
November 10, 2025 at 2:53 AM
Governor Gavin Newsom on Twitter a few moments ago
Regarding Democrat Senators who caved
Agree with you Governor 💯
Regarding Democrat Senators who caved
Agree with you Governor 💯
Reposted
Republicans were overwhelmingly getting blamed for the shutdown.
There was no reason for the Democrats to cave to Trump on healthcare, except for the fact that they are wholly owned and operated by the health insurance lobby.
There was no reason for the Democrats to cave to Trump on healthcare, except for the fact that they are wholly owned and operated by the health insurance lobby.
November 10, 2025 at 3:31 AM
Republicans were overwhelmingly getting blamed for the shutdown.
There was no reason for the Democrats to cave to Trump on healthcare, except for the fact that they are wholly owned and operated by the health insurance lobby.
There was no reason for the Democrats to cave to Trump on healthcare, except for the fact that they are wholly owned and operated by the health insurance lobby.
Reposted
Amazon charge up to 40% rent to use their services.
80% of all profits are directly removed from the UK and into tax havens. Depletion of money in the UK economy.
Sell a great invention—they will copy it and sell it for themselves.
They steal & sell PRIVATE data.
This is a PREDATORY COMPANY
80% of all profits are directly removed from the UK and into tax havens. Depletion of money in the UK economy.
Sell a great invention—they will copy it and sell it for themselves.
They steal & sell PRIVATE data.
This is a PREDATORY COMPANY
November 10, 2025 at 5:57 AM
Amazon charge up to 40% rent to use their services.
80% of all profits are directly removed from the UK and into tax havens. Depletion of money in the UK economy.
Sell a great invention—they will copy it and sell it for themselves.
They steal & sell PRIVATE data.
This is a PREDATORY COMPANY
80% of all profits are directly removed from the UK and into tax havens. Depletion of money in the UK economy.
Sell a great invention—they will copy it and sell it for themselves.
They steal & sell PRIVATE data.
This is a PREDATORY COMPANY
So, none of these falsely suggest that the p-curve null-hypothesis (all significant results are false positives) is falsely rejected more than 5% of the time with alpha = .05?
This post came about as a follow-up to a comment @rmcelreath.bsky.social made on the sidelines of the great p-curve wars earlier this year. I wanted to see for myself just how non-uniform these things are and when.
I had a play in #rstats with the distribution of p-values under a true null hypothesis, for two-sample tests of equal proportions at different sample sizes. They're not uniformly distributed, but sometimes they are more non-uniform than other times. freerangestats.info/blog/2025/11...
November 9, 2025 at 9:02 PM
So, none of these falsely suggest that the p-curve null-hypothesis (all significant results are false positives) is falsely rejected more than 5% of the time with alpha = .05?
Reposted
A lot is going on at @forrt.bsky.social! #OER, #metascience, #socialjustice, and much more. If you want to get a glimpse of some of the projects, check out this beautiful booklet at forrt.org/booklet created by @irissmal.bsky.social
November 9, 2025 at 10:17 AM
A lot is going on at @forrt.bsky.social! #OER, #metascience, #socialjustice, and much more. If you want to get a glimpse of some of the projects, check out this beautiful booklet at forrt.org/booklet created by @irissmal.bsky.social
One of the jobs of #MetaScience is or should be to distinguish real science from pseudo-science; and the job of meta-scientists is to call out pseudo-science when they see it. Academic != scientist.
replicationindex.com/2025/11/06/t...
replicationindex.com/2025/11/06/t...
The Ideology versus the Science of Evolved Sex Differences - Replicability-Index
1. Introduction: Competing Stories About Gender Debates about sex differences often swing between extremes. One narrative, familiar from strands of radical feminism, portrays masculinity as dangerous—...
replicationindex.com
November 7, 2025 at 7:26 PM
One of the jobs of #MetaScience is or should be to distinguish real science from pseudo-science; and the job of meta-scientists is to call out pseudo-science when they see it. Academic != scientist.
replicationindex.com/2025/11/06/t...
replicationindex.com/2025/11/06/t...
some things are real: cognitive biases like confirmation and consensus bias, the problem is that they also influenced the work of the scientists who studied them. MetaBias.
This is depressing, but also a reckoning is long past due. These studies have been the basis for a lot of gatekeeping in a lot of disciplines and I’m glad to see effort devoted to rechecking them.
Ok, just wow. If the content of this article is right, this is depressing. We're slowly reaching the point where ~100% of what I was taught in Social Psych was either innocently wrong or plainly frauded
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
November 7, 2025 at 3:21 AM
some things are real: cognitive biases like confirmation and consensus bias, the problem is that they also influenced the work of the scientists who studied them. MetaBias.
A rumor is that Festinger asked his graduate students to do the study and Carlsmith was the lucky one who got the significant results, or was he?
Thanks Eric! My point is that something appears to have gone very wrong in the classic dissonance findings, i.e., that the findings from that classic early work are the result of questionable research practices or worse
November 7, 2025 at 3:07 AM
A rumor is that Festinger asked his graduate students to do the study and Carlsmith was the lucky one who got the significant results, or was he?
Reposted
There’s growing evidence that something was going seriously wrong in the classic early work on cognitive dissonance
Latest revelation: The story in When Prophecy Fails seems to have been fabricated in the most egregious way
But this is not the only one…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Latest revelation: The story in When Prophecy Fails seems to have been fabricated in the most egregious way
But this is not the only one…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”
In 1954, Dorothy Martin predicted an apocalyptic flood and promised her followers rescue by flying saucers. When neither arrived, she recanted, her group dissolved, and efforts to proselytize ceased....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 6, 2025 at 2:06 PM
There’s growing evidence that something was going seriously wrong in the classic early work on cognitive dissonance
Latest revelation: The story in When Prophecy Fails seems to have been fabricated in the most egregious way
But this is not the only one…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Latest revelation: The story in When Prophecy Fails seems to have been fabricated in the most egregious way
But this is not the only one…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
The not so open Uri Simonsohn. Have you ever wondered why Datacolada has no peer review and no comment section. This is worse than old-school journals. What a jerk.
replicationindex.com/2025/11/05/w...
replicationindex.com/2025/11/05/w...
Why Uri Simonsohn is a Jerk - Replicability-Index
Science is like an iceberg. The published record is only a fraction of the things that university -paid academics do. Some time ago, Brian Nosek dreamed about a scientific utopia of open science that ...
replicationindex.com
November 6, 2025 at 1:28 AM
The not so open Uri Simonsohn. Have you ever wondered why Datacolada has no peer review and no comment section. This is worse than old-school journals. What a jerk.
replicationindex.com/2025/11/05/w...
replicationindex.com/2025/11/05/w...
This is pretty stupid. The right response is to use AI to fight AI crap. Train a model to desk reject AI crap and publish stuff that passes peer review. The added benefit would be that it also rejects human-made crap.
arXiv one of the latest to begin blanket rejecting of papers due to AI. This follows Plos and Frontiers approach to papers using NHANES data.
I feel a drastic change will eventually come to academia in terms of publication, open data etc. How will we adapt?
#metascience #opensci #AcademicSky
I feel a drastic change will eventually come to academia in terms of publication, open data etc. How will we adapt?
#metascience #opensci #AcademicSky
Attention Authors: Updated Practice for Review Articles and Position Papers in arXiv CS Category – arXiv blog
blog.arxiv.org
November 5, 2025 at 2:05 PM
This is pretty stupid. The right response is to use AI to fight AI crap. Train a model to desk reject AI crap and publish stuff that passes peer review. The added benefit would be that it also rejects human-made crap.
Reposted
@aoc.bsky.social says of Mamdani victory: "A lot of people...are willing to talk about party unity when it serves them, but not party unity when it serves everybody."
"We have a future to fight for, and we're either going to do that together or you're going to be left behind."
"We have a future to fight for, and we're either going to do that together or you're going to be left behind."
November 5, 2025 at 4:37 AM
@aoc.bsky.social says of Mamdani victory: "A lot of people...are willing to talk about party unity when it serves them, but not party unity when it serves everybody."
"We have a future to fight for, and we're either going to do that together or you're going to be left behind."
"We have a future to fight for, and we're either going to do that together or you're going to be left behind."
Reposted
Mamdani: “NYC will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and as of tonight, LED by an immigrant!”
🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥
🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥
November 5, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Mamdani: “NYC will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and as of tonight, LED by an immigrant!”
🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥
🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥
This is so stupid. Using AI is not p-hacking. This article is just a good example of questionable reasoning, if we can even call it that. Or it is really an implicit attitude test. If you like it, you don't like AI.
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/i...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/a...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/i...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/a...
November 5, 2025 at 3:14 AM
This is so stupid. Using AI is not p-hacking. This article is just a good example of questionable reasoning, if we can even call it that. Or it is really an implicit attitude test. If you like it, you don't like AI.
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/i...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/a...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/i...
replicationindex.com/2025/10/04/a...
This is nonsense. Paradigms fight for survival no matter what the paradigm is. The only way to fight this is a true culture of falsification. We do not have that anywhere in the social sciences.
The methodological stagnation of #sociology is related to its left-wing skew
link.springer.com/article/10.1... #MetaScience I don't have access, but there is a detailed abstract. Argument goes political homogeneity => no truth-seeking => no interest in rigor and openness 1/
link.springer.com/article/10.1... #MetaScience I don't have access, but there is a detailed abstract. Argument goes political homogeneity => no truth-seeking => no interest in rigor and openness 1/
November 4, 2025 at 8:36 PM
This is nonsense. Paradigms fight for survival no matter what the paradigm is. The only way to fight this is a true culture of falsification. We do not have that anywhere in the social sciences.
We already have reverse p-hacking. It is called Bayes Factors.
😀🤪😁
😀🤪😁
Really enjoyed this!
I esp loved the discussion of reverse p-hacking as a means of purposely generating null results. I could picture this happening more as null results become more acceptable--it'd be yet another way of creating a "clear story." Might I suggest calling it: "p-stacking"? 😉
I esp loved the discussion of reverse p-hacking as a means of purposely generating null results. I could picture this happening more as null results become more acceptable--it'd be yet another way of creating a "clear story." Might I suggest calling it: "p-stacking"? 😉
November 4, 2025 at 8:33 PM
We already have reverse p-hacking. It is called Bayes Factors.
😀🤪😁
😀🤪😁
Reposted
Another big endorsement for Andrew Cuomo. And it only cost $959 million in tax breaks.
November 3, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Another big endorsement for Andrew Cuomo. And it only cost $959 million in tax breaks.
How much does it cost to publish a rant in Nature?
November 2, 2025 at 4:58 PM
How much does it cost to publish a rant in Nature?
There is a problem with the claim that "it is all bias". That is not true simply because there is clear evidence of heterogeneity. So, some results are true others are not, but we do not know which are which. But that is to complex, so we just say, all are false, which is also false.
Amazing. Someone points out that the results of nudge metaanalysis are actually all publication bias. Original authors then brush it off with ”[being] a relatively young field … comes with some methodological growing pains.”
there have been big questions raised about the quality and reliability of the research suggesting that small nudges (like moving an entry field or asking people to tick a box) meaningfully affect behaviour
November 2, 2025 at 4:56 PM
There is a problem with the claim that "it is all bias". That is not true simply because there is clear evidence of heterogeneity. So, some results are true others are not, but we do not know which are which. But that is to complex, so we just say, all are false, which is also false.
Lot's of confusion inderd. Just repoft the effect size estimate. Large N means small confidence interval. P values are useless. Outdated for 100 years.
There still seems to be a lot of confusion about significance testing in psych. No, p-values *don’t* become useless at large N. This flawed point also used to be framed as "too much power". But power isn't the problem – it's 1) unbalanced error rates and 2) the (lack of a) SESOI. 1/ >
But here's, the thing, p values and significance become useless at such large sample sizes. When you're dividing the coefficient by the SE and the sample size is in the tens of thousands, EVERYTHING IS SIGNIFICANT. All you're testing is whether the coefficient is different than zero.
October 31, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Lot's of confusion inderd. Just repoft the effect size estimate. Large N means small confidence interval. P values are useless. Outdated for 100 years.
Will read
But by definition 100% of significant results are selected to be significant.
Phrasing
65% were p-hacked?
How would we know?
But by definition 100% of significant results are selected to be significant.
Phrasing
65% were p-hacked?
How would we know?
Publication bias is greater at the top five journals: "56% of statistically significant results [in leading econ journals] were selected to be statistically significant. Selection bias is greater at top5 journals, where 66% of significant results were selected to be significant."
October 31, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Will read
But by definition 100% of significant results are selected to be significant.
Phrasing
65% were p-hacked?
How would we know?
But by definition 100% of significant results are selected to be significant.
Phrasing
65% were p-hacked?
How would we know?