Want us to add your blog?This site aggregates blogs about personality psychology. If you'd like us to add your blog to the meta-blog, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Andrew Gelman’s blog about the Fiske fiasco – Brent Roberts (pigee)
- The Strange Link Between Attitudes Towards Sex and Drugs – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- The Ghost of Situationism and Why Personality is Not a Myth – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- Please Stop the Bleating – Brent Roberts (pigee)
- Fantasy Choices and the Real Self – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- i have found the solution and it is us – Simine Vazire (sometimes i'm wrong)
Filter Posts by Blog
Subscribe to the Meta-Blog
DisclaimerThe views expressed in blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association for Research in Personality.
Some of you might have missed the kerfuffle that erupted in the last few days over a pre-print of an editorial written by Susan Fiske for the APS Monitor about us “methodological terrorists”. Andrew Gelman’s blog reposts Fiske’s piece, puts it in historical context, and does a fairly good job of articulating why it is problematic beyond the terminological hyperbole that Fiske employs. We are reposting it for your edification.
The Strange Link Between Attitudes Towards Sex and Drugs – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
According to evolutionary theories, people's attitudes to recreational drug use may be influenced by their preferred mating strategies.
The Ghost of Situationism and Why Personality is Not a Myth – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
A recent podcast on the "Myth" of personality trots out long discredited arguments against the reality of personality. Why do these ideas keep returning like a restless ghost?
It has been unsettling to witness the seemingly endless stream of null effects emerging from numerous pre-registered direct replications over the past few months. Some of the outcomes were unsurprising given the low power of the original studies. But the truly painful part has come from watching and reading the responses from all sides. Countless words have been written discussing every nuanced aspect of definitions, motivations, and aspersions. Only one thing is missing: Direct, pre-registered replications by the authors of studies that have been the target of replications. While I am sympathetic to the fact that those who are targeted might be upset, defensive, and highly motivated to defend their ideas, the absence of any data from the originating authors is a more profound indictment of the original finding than any commentary. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I’m wrong, none of the researchers who’ve been the target of a pre-registered replication have produced a pre-registered study from their own lab showing that they are capable of getting the effect, even if others are not. For those of us standing on the sidelines watching things play out we are constantly surprised by the fact that the one piece of information that might help—evidence that the original authors are capable of reproducing their own effects (in a pre-registered study)—is never offered up. So, get on with it. Seriously. Everyone. Continue reading
Choices people make in fantasy contexts reflect rather than complement their personalities. People may be reluctant to create imaginary identities that mismatch their real selves.
[DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are personal opinions, and they do not reflect the editorial policy of Social Psychological and Personality Science or its sponsoring associations, which are responsible for setting editorial policy for the journal.]
bear, having recently joined SIPS
i have found scientific utopia.*sometimes, when i lay awake at night, it's hard for me to believe that science will ever look the way i want it to look,** with everyone being skeptical of preliminary evidence, conclusions being circumscribed, studies being pre-registered, data and materials being open, and civil post-publication criticism being a normal part of life.then i realized that utopia already exists. it's how we treat replication studies.i've never tried to do a replication study,*** but some of my best friends (and two of my grad students) are replicators. so i know a little bit about the process of trying to get a replication study published. short version: it's super hard.we (almost always) hold replication studies to an extremely high standard. that's why i'm surprised whenever i hear people say that researchers do replications in order to get an 'easy' publication. replications are not for the faint of heart. if you want to have a chance of getting a failed replication**** published in a good journal, here's what you often have to do: Continue reading
PSY 607: Everything is Fucked
Prof. Sanjay Srivastava
Class meetings: Mondays 9:00 – 10:50 in 257 Straub
Office hours: Held on Twitter at your convenience (@hardsci)
In a much-discussed article at Slate, social psychologist Michael Inzlicht told a reporter, “Meta-analyses are fucked” (Engber, 2016). What does it mean, in science, for something to be fucked? Fucked needs to mean more than that something is complicated or must be undertaken with thought and care, as that would be trivially true of everything in science. In this class we will go a step further and say that something is fucked if it presents hard conceptual challenges to which implementable, real-world solutions for working scientists are either not available or routinely ignored in practice.
The format of this seminar is as follows: Each week we will read and discuss 1-2 papers that raise the question of whether something is fucked. Our focus will be on things that may be fucked in research methods, scientific practice, and philosophy of science. The potential fuckedness of specific theories, research topics, etc. will not be the focus of this class per se, but rather will be used to illustrate these important topics. To that end, each week a different student will be assigned to find a paper that illustrates the fuckedness (or lack thereof) of that week’s topic, and give a 15-minute presentation about whether it is indeed fucked.
20% Attendance and participation
30% In-class presentation
50% Final exam