thanks for the recommendation!

this is great! here’s another (not browser specific, though slightly more work) way to remove the AI preview from google searches bsky.app/profile/cval...

Also talked about The Onion being inefficient on purpose.

www.status.news/p/the-onion-...

IU has the oldest Folklore Department in the country--no longer a major. Cognitive Science? gone! PhD programs also sacrificed. Full list here: www.in.gov/che/files/In...

Even accepting the premise that AI produces useful writing (which no one should), using AI in education is like using a forklift at the gym. The weights do not actually need to be moved from place to place. That is not the work. The work is what happens within you.

we appreciate you!!

Don’t fall into the trap of normalizing any of this with this sort of language that we’ve seen from so many universities, falsely equating the current situation with other presidential transitions

This is unprecedented, unconscionable, and deliberately disruptive.

Have the backbone to say that.

one thing that helps me figure out which books to read is to look up suggestions for books similar to titles i enjoyed. i’m lucky to have access to a great catalog at our local library, i find reading on an e-reader much more convenient (as much as i love the experience of reading a physical book).

getting back to reading for fun was my resolution for 2024 and i read 50 books this year! i did: an app to track my progress (StoryGraph); a kindle case with a strap for comfortable holding; and downloading more than 1 book at a time (so i could switch if i didn’t get into a book).

all data and code are openly available on OSF!

… — replicating results from tasks that not not measure intended constructs does little to advance theory & failures to replicate may be due to the tasks lacking reliability (and not to the underlying hypotheses being incorrect).

in the discussion, we connect these results to the larger discussions in the field about replicability and open science.

we argue that the current standard of not examining psychometrics of cognitive tasks is a threat to developmental science…

we additionally did some (even cooler!) permutation analyses to see whether the results could be explained by participants randomly placing items on the board — spoiler alert, that seems unlikely!

we then used this measure to assess the psychometrics of the task, which showed appropriate construct validity (β = 0.40), internal consistency (r2 = 0.20), and test–retest reliability (r2 = 0.41; ICC = 0.56).