late to the party, but congrats, Felix!

Completely agree. Averages can hide weird patterns. We make a related point about stimuli in psych experiments and propose a visualization here: psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-... (or datacolada.org/126 for a summary)

Thank you!!

Completely agree!

In those cases, it can feel like the kind thing to do is to either not mention them at all or to soften them so much that they become obscured. And that’s where I think there is an inevitable tension between kindness and truth-seeking
…

I largely agree with this, and I think it’s something that some critically minded people tend to underweigh. The biggest challenge in practice, I think, is that certain criticisms-no matter how carefully you frame them-will still be perceived as unkind
…

Same (except with base r). I find it quite enjoyable, and it has made me more fastidious with figures.

It could work. I'm particularly interested in confounds and causal identification, because so called 'conservative confounds' could create other unintended problems. But my concern might apply to this as well.

Interesting, I was thinking about this in the context of causal identification rather than statistical significance. I was curious about counterarguments like "what seems like a 'conservative confound' that goes against the observed effect may actually change how the other mechanisms work."

thanks!

Parts of this book would probably work: press.princeton.edu/books/paperb...

How to use excel safely to avoid errors: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Yeah, I have a different read of the evidence that aligns more with this (parentdata.org/alcohol-and-...) and hence why I find the causality statement too strong. But we can agree to disagree. Thanks for engaging.