David Tannenbaum
@davetannenbaum.bsky.social
judgment and decision making
university of utah
davetannenbaum.github.io
university of utah
davetannenbaum.github.io
We examine that in the paper. Maybe you should read it first.
December 2, 2025 at 3:06 AM
We examine that in the paper. Maybe you should read it first.
Another policy that would address your concerns, and would be far more efficient, would be lotteries (random assignment of grant awards)
October 20, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Another policy that would address your concerns, and would be far more efficient, would be lotteries (random assignment of grant awards)
Don’t disagree, but it’s worth considering how much wasted time and labor (for applicants, reviewers, and tax payers) we are paying and how much marginal meritocracy we are getting in return. Pretty sure the current system is not a good trade-off.
October 20, 2025 at 7:36 PM
Don’t disagree, but it’s worth considering how much wasted time and labor (for applicants, reviewers, and tax payers) we are paying and how much marginal meritocracy we are getting in return. Pretty sure the current system is not a good trade-off.
But I admit, assuming ideas have zero causal force is a strong assumption.
October 20, 2025 at 6:32 PM
But I admit, assuming ideas have zero causal force is a strong assumption.
The question is whether having applicants write about their ideas, and reviewers evaluate them, actually makes things any more meritocratic than just posting a CV. If it doesn’t, then just posting a CV is still a win because doing so stops wasting everyone’s time.
October 20, 2025 at 6:30 PM
The question is whether having applicants write about their ideas, and reviewers evaluate them, actually makes things any more meritocratic than just posting a CV. If it doesn’t, then just posting a CV is still a win because doing so stops wasting everyone’s time.
Open question whether the just-my-CV approach generates more bias than the current regime for grants. Not clear to me it would.
Also would be an easy fix to have applicants remove institutional information from a CV.
Also would be an easy fix to have applicants remove institutional information from a CV.
October 20, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Open question whether the just-my-CV approach generates more bias than the current regime for grants. Not clear to me it would.
Also would be an easy fix to have applicants remove institutional information from a CV.
Also would be an easy fix to have applicants remove institutional information from a CV.
I have the same intuition. Also think there is going to be more agreement/consensus across people on what is bad than agreement on what is good. Assume it arises because of negativity dominance (our minds show greater differentiation to shades of bad than to shades of good)
October 14, 2025 at 4:30 PM
I have the same intuition. Also think there is going to be more agreement/consensus across people on what is bad than agreement on what is good. Assume it arises because of negativity dominance (our minds show greater differentiation to shades of bad than to shades of good)
Got it, thanks Vlad. Looking forward to the morality measurement paper, will keep an eye out for it!
July 5, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Got it, thanks Vlad. Looking forward to the morality measurement paper, will keep an eye out for it!
Congrats on the paper.
Would repeated measures within-groups or within-individuals (such as ipsatized scores) get around the issue?
Would repeated measures within-groups or within-individuals (such as ipsatized scores) get around the issue?
July 5, 2025 at 8:14 AM
Congrats on the paper.
Would repeated measures within-groups or within-individuals (such as ipsatized scores) get around the issue?
Would repeated measures within-groups or within-individuals (such as ipsatized scores) get around the issue?
But I agree with your broader point, that we should care what your theory predicts not what you predict.
May 22, 2025 at 7:44 PM
But I agree with your broader point, that we should care what your theory predicts not what you predict.
As a reviewer/editor, don't you think it's makes more sense to ask for some kind of additional corroboration (such as a replication) in (1) than in (2)?
The only difference is (1) is exploratory and (2) is confirmatory. Prereg helps us distinguish exploratory vs confirmatory.
The only difference is (1) is exploratory and (2) is confirmatory. Prereg helps us distinguish exploratory vs confirmatory.
May 22, 2025 at 7:44 PM
As a reviewer/editor, don't you think it's makes more sense to ask for some kind of additional corroboration (such as a replication) in (1) than in (2)?
The only difference is (1) is exploratory and (2) is confirmatory. Prereg helps us distinguish exploratory vs confirmatory.
The only difference is (1) is exploratory and (2) is confirmatory. Prereg helps us distinguish exploratory vs confirmatory.
Consider two scenarios: (1) "We ran a study, did a bunch of analyses, stumbled across this interesting 3-way intx seems consistent with theory X" (2) "We were interested in testing a specific 3-way intx predicted by theory X, and designed a study to test it." Assume the same sample size in both.
May 22, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Consider two scenarios: (1) "We ran a study, did a bunch of analyses, stumbled across this interesting 3-way intx seems consistent with theory X" (2) "We were interested in testing a specific 3-way intx predicted by theory X, and designed a study to test it." Assume the same sample size in both.
A big part of preregistration is to make papers more evaluable for editors and reviewers (e.g., your 'predicted' 3-way interaction becomes a lot more credible if you stated your predictions and analysis plan in advance). Author's professed reason for prereg is somewhat besides the point.
May 22, 2025 at 4:40 PM
A big part of preregistration is to make papers more evaluable for editors and reviewers (e.g., your 'predicted' 3-way interaction becomes a lot more credible if you stated your predictions and analysis plan in advance). Author's professed reason for prereg is somewhat besides the point.
"my brilliance is but a vessel for God's truth"
May 22, 2025 at 12:34 AM
"my brilliance is but a vessel for God's truth"
You look like you are being held hostage in that Rady video.
May 21, 2025 at 5:48 AM
You look like you are being held hostage in that Rady video.
Also pretty cowardly that they won’t put their name on their work. If you don’t think your study was unethical, then fully own up to it.
April 28, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Also pretty cowardly that they won’t put their name on their work. If you don’t think your study was unethical, then fully own up to it.
Memorable one from Herb Clark:
"Half of doing science is writing, so until you write well, you will never be more than half a scientist."
"Half of doing science is writing, so until you write well, you will never be more than half a scientist."
April 23, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Memorable one from Herb Clark:
"Half of doing science is writing, so until you write well, you will never be more than half a scientist."
"Half of doing science is writing, so until you write well, you will never be more than half a scientist."
I'm sorry Margaret. Couldn't agree more that dogs are incredible and not sure we deserve them. Rest in peace Henry, may you run forever in the grassy fields of doggy heaven.
April 15, 2025 at 9:49 PM
I'm sorry Margaret. Couldn't agree more that dogs are incredible and not sure we deserve them. Rest in peace Henry, may you run forever in the grassy fields of doggy heaven.
Birds aren't real, Quentin
March 28, 2025 at 4:03 AM
Birds aren't real, Quentin
One person who anticipated some of this was @snazzylabs.com. Check out this video (around the 20:30 mark) www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Yu...
Apple's Most Jam-Packed Keynote Ever!
YouTube video by Snazzy Labs
www.youtube.com
March 13, 2025 at 5:07 AM
One person who anticipated some of this was @snazzylabs.com. Check out this video (around the 20:30 mark) www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Yu...
Here’s an interesting application. Not sure if the data is publicly available but you could try reaching out to the authors.
guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1...
guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Using Conjoint Analysis to Detect Discrimination: Revealing Covert Preferences From Overt Choices | Social Cognition
In an effort to continue the development of methods to understand social cognition, we adopt a technique called conjoint analysis that mathematically deduces preferences from the implied tradeoffs peo...
guilfordjournals.com
December 23, 2024 at 12:33 AM
Here’s an interesting application. Not sure if the data is publicly available but you could try reaching out to the authors.
guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1...
guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1...
As for terminology, you could call it a form of rent seeking behavior.
December 19, 2024 at 7:57 PM
As for terminology, you could call it a form of rent seeking behavior.
To your point, UT Dallas business school created a journal list to rank different b-schools by research productivity. It just so happens that UT Dallas ranks #2 on that list.
December 19, 2024 at 7:53 PM
To your point, UT Dallas business school created a journal list to rank different b-schools by research productivity. It just so happens that UT Dallas ranks #2 on that list.