Andrews gets major edge for beautiful, thoughtful design and intuitive context (the Dems vs. GOP context will immediately click for many)

Felix's, though rougher/less intuitive, has an edge on "QRP realism", as I think cherry-picking outlier obs + "study didn't work: run again" were common QRPs

I also enjoy the p-hacker app by Felix Schönbrodt (@nicebread@scicomm.xyz on Mastodon): www.shinyapps.org/apps/p-hacker/.

There's also his companion p-checker app: shinyapps.org/apps/p-check..., useful for showing how p-hacked effects do (e.g., TIVA)/don't (e.g., Meta) "pop" in credibility metrics

So much of your career chances are determined by whether you are working with a successful and supportive team.

I.e. Whether you are working with a line manager or mentor who hands down opportunities. Coauthorships on papers. Coapplicants on grant.

If you're not being given these, you MUST move.

That being said, I think some of the same magical patterns could be fit to certain initiatives/efforts in the OS movement. So I say all of this as a rabid supporter of some OS products (e.g., RRs) and a skeptic of others (e.g., preregistration outside of RRs) 🤷‍♂️

And I don't mean that figuratively. I mean people in the world today who think they are reality-bending sorcerers would look at some of how our business is conducted, and think "Those people have some serious $%&*ing magikal capabilities!"

To go a step beyond "storytelling"--and I think I made this argument, unhinged, in a conference room with @rogerthegs.bsky.social a handful of years ago--there is a legitimate and distressing overlap between A) contemporary social science practices and B) contemporary schools of *magical* practices

This looks awesome, though I have a very, very, very fuzzy memory of @minecr.bsky.social once-upon-a-time writing a really persuasive thread or piece (can't remember) to the effect of: we should stop trying to duck R's built-in contrast system (and bad things happen when we do). Ring any bells?

Chapter 8 of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken

Withdraw from social media; deny uAlberta the free marketing of its "impact".
Teach strictly to the textbook; tell students it's too risky to express opinions outside of "legislated curriculum"
Grieve the impact of censorship; fuck with their workflow if they're gonna fuck with yours

Reading this exchange has also been a good reminder that there's almost always someone who knows more about a certain thing than you do, and it can be tricky to remember that when many of us (incl. myself) wear the "hat" of method/quant person in our academic communities that hype our knowledge-base

This 🧵 has solidified for me a belief that there just are some scientific arguments that are harder to win than others, because the devil is in the belaboured boring-ass details, and those kinds of arguments are vulnerable to alternative positions that are easier (and more entertaining) to convey.

This sets up an interesting rhetorical asymmetry between the two; give me 100 MS vs. S debates, and I'd conjure the more entertaining and accessible take will be the MS camp's in 95 of them.

That doesn't mean that the MS are wrong and the S are right in this (or any) instance. But >

and is grounded in (all things considered) more accessible prose and argumentation.

The S-camp, in contrast is...not that. These kinds of arguments, and the writing needed to convey them, are often technical, dry, lengthy, detailed, and quite sober. Indeed, how does one make a proof funny? >

The second, and more prominent, is how distinctive the tone of MS discourse is, especially offset against this reply from those in the S-camp. MS argumentation is often amusing, clever, funny, biting, and at times, entertaining. The approach "works" in the sense that it creates a lot of engagement >

My editor font is comic sans