Saturday assorted links


#4. Ha ha, that was funny. But also depressing.

#2 was hardly about the 1997 tourist guide at all.

1. This is a trick question, for loyal readers, right? As noted here, 'Take your smartphone on a date, and it might vibrate in your pocket to indicate “Kiss her now.”' -

cf Memorabilia 1.3.2

(6) that is an interesting point. However, my guess is that the reduction in mortality rates is unevenly spread. It sounds like a great paper for some young enterprising economist to go over the wage growth vs mortality rate changes across different fields.

It does make some level of sense that if OSHA Requirements (and simiar policies) reduce productivity that the price would have to be paid somehow.

Sounds juicy.

The persistent use of 2-sigma results in the soft sciences is problematic. More so when you examine standard research practices and realize it is data-mining through and through. Let's set the bar for tenure at publishing a relevant five-sigma result.

#2, What is it like to use a 1963 tourist guide to visit Europe? (published 2012)

#1 what is the "technical" definition of "interest" in that abstract?
#3 Bunker mentality paper. What is the problem this paper is to address? Dangers to the reputations of social scientists, if I am reading between the lines properly. Please correct me if I am wrong but it sounds to me that he wants to only call something a failure to replicate if 2 + 2 comes up 5 and that it is merely "not robust" if I say 2 + 2 = 4 means that taller people are genetically superior.
#4 All of these would "replicate" right?
#5 Haha. Based on the nomenclature they are too lax, but really we are way too strict with low level financial assistance.
#6 Is ridiculous. As if income inequality is being driven by sewer workers.

I don't think #3 deserves to be read so cynically. The paper highlights genuine issues about what replication means. I don't come down in the same place that he does (I think replication should include trying to repeat the same experiment in a different population), but I agree that having a precise definition is important.

As for your example, you seem to be talking about faulty interpretation of genuine results. Replication isn't the answer to that, because you really do have to repeat the same experimental design for it to be "replication". The strength of the interpretation is assessed by new experiments that try to answer the same question in a different way.

Explain how your view would apply to the famous priming studies then? Aren't they now unimpeachable from a replication standpoint according to his definition?

1. What predicts relationship success?

So wives who are committed enough to their husbands to have sex with him when they don't want to tend to be committed to their husbands? This psychology lark doesn't seem as hard as I first thought.

But causation, causation, causation. Which comes first? Well the husband obviously. But apart from him, are they having sex because they still want to be married or are they still married because they are having sex?

I always make sure she... Ya know, first. Secret of my success. Write a paper about that!

Re #5: When I immigrated, an expectation that I could master English was clearly expressed. In this charade, where the powers that be deviate from their own rules, I am being punished twice:

First when more lax standard is being applied towards others, whereby the value of being a legal immigrant gets diminished.

Second when the effect of the lax standards is higher demand on the public purse. This is the real story, the effect in Puerto Rico is the comic unintended side effect.

Comments for this post are closed