E. David Klonsky, PhD
banner
klonskylab.bsky.social
E. David Klonsky, PhD
@klonskylab.bsky.social
Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Suicide, emotion, and personality research. Advocate for robust science. Also jiu-jitsu and combat sports 🤟🏼
Things are scary.
October 23, 2025 at 4:18 AM
I state that an increasing % of progressives have a disease of rhetoric — and you respond by asserting a rhetoric-based progressive purity test 🤔😬 Also, Germany doesn’t support genocide against Palestinians, and invoking the holocaust in this context only means you don’t appreciate the holocaust.
August 31, 2025 at 5:14 PM
It is ofc 100% possible to condemn Netanyahu & the war in Gaza without being antisemitic (most Israelis do). BUT there is also a ton of antisemitism that cloaks itself in Palestinian flags and marginalizes Jewish progressives like me who dare to criticize Hamas, eg, see these recent lies about me.
August 15, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Please don’t oversimplify antisemitism or genocide. Klein does not conclude there is genocide; he considers it earnestly. That’s in stark contrast to the prejudiced/fanatical efforts to claim of ‘genocide’ within weeks of Oct 7, and expel the UN advisor on genocide (Nderitu) when she disagreed.
August 15, 2025 at 3:39 AM
📢 I'm offering a 1-hour seminar, "Understanding Suicide to Prevent Suicide," through the Zur Institute. It's just $25, and you get a CE credit! If you're interested, I'd love to see you there -- or feel free to share.

Register: www.zurinstitute.com/webinars/und...

#SuicidePrevention #MentalHealth
April 18, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Rest in peace, Iceman. You gave us some iconic memories.
April 2, 2025 at 4:51 AM
A step in that direction…
March 15, 2025 at 11:59 PM
In a hard messed up world, it’s nice to have pockets of joy. Today I got to meet and learn from the legend, Lyoto “the Dragon” Machida!!!!
March 9, 2025 at 12:45 AM
🇨🇦 Wins in OT!!!!!!!! 🏒🥅🏅

Tough loss for Governor Trump, who personally called team USA before the match urging them to win.

And a nice photo courtesy of the Associated Press, current banned from the Trump White House.
February 21, 2025 at 5:49 AM
This is one reason why I think manuscripts should contain a robustness checks section. This would make it normal for researchers to conduct additional analyses, and for reviewers to request additional analyses, that ask: if key analyses are done this other reasonable way, are the results different?
February 7, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Hope you get helpful treatment! I just got this new rashguard for Jiu Jitsu.
February 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM
But I hear there’s a fear folks clinging to undisclosed researcher df will misread/miscite my paper. Here’s a screenshot of what my paper says about them.
February 5, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Even my abstract centers this distinction. I think we agree or mainly agree. And I think what I wrote expresses that consistently and repeatedly.
February 5, 2025 at 8:36 PM
I agree. This was a concern of mine too. By my count, my paper 28 times (28!!) distinguishes a) praise of the tool from b) criticism of elevating the tool into a mandate/goal/norm. I’m genuinely confused as to how people think I am critiquing preregistration itself.
February 5, 2025 at 8:28 PM
No one wanted or anticipated that use of hypotheses and p-values would be so corrupted. If you take a step back, it’s hard to fathom that it happened. The difference between thoughtful use and everyday use got so vast!! So I’m trying to address why. And use that knowledge to avoid similar patterns.
February 5, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Yes, that’s 100% fraud. I use words like “fraudulent” and “scientific malpractice.” But this is also why I like robustness analyses as an ongoing process. Reviewers can notice reasonable multiverse analyses that seem omitted, and request them as robustness checks.
February 5, 2025 at 6:53 PM
I clearly say “PRM incentives” disproportionately reward pre-planned analyses over exploratory and robustness checks; and I clearly say that preregistration itself can support exploratory analyses. Please, stop ignoring this distinction — made about 25 times in the paper — between mandates and tools
February 5, 2025 at 6:28 PM
They’d be citing this 😅 Maybe another problem in our field is that, for emotion-laden issues, people project rather than read.
February 5, 2025 at 6:21 PM
I don’t say that or believe that. You are projecting. (The current reward system and narrative around preregistration is what limits attention to exploratory analyses and robustness checks, not preregistration itself.)
February 5, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Here’s why I don’t feel like you address my arguments. You write as if I don’t consider how to get people to follow recommendations, but I do, explicitly. You write as if I don’t see a role for preregistration, but I do. You write as if I’m not skeptical about human behavior change, but I am.
February 5, 2025 at 4:39 AM
First training after nose surgery! See if you can guess which one I am…
February 5, 2025 at 2:13 AM
This is a preview of just one field-wide consequence if we elevate preregistration from a useful tool into a mandate or norm. I call it “File-drawer 2.0”.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
February 4, 2025 at 4:50 PM
I exist because my grandmother survived Auschwitz. People overlook the careful planning. Engineers designed gas chambers because it was too expensive to genocide with bullets. Teams collected hair, fillings, and jewelry. Industry custom-built crematoria for Auschwitz that could burn 5,000 bodies/day
January 27, 2025 at 6:18 PM
In other news, the inside of my nose had been refurbished.
January 22, 2025 at 8:05 PM
January 21, 2025 at 4:36 PM