Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

This is your irregularly scheduled reminder that Christianity is just one kind of religion and not the universal human standard for any and all religions.

Atheists, especially, please tale note. When you make this mistake* you work to further Christian hegemony, which is theoretically counter to your stated goals.

…

* A mistake repeated enough times starts to look purposeful.

...I just found out that apparently a lot of people use the right shift key o.o

I thought it was a completely pointless key that nobody ever uses 💀

Vraag niet wat het land voor jou doen kan, maar vraag wat jij kunt doen tegen de pvv. #FCKPVV

Heeft er iemand suggesties voor een links-activistisch #Matrix-kanaal?

Hoeft niet per se activisme als aangewezen onderwerp te hebben, het gaat me er meer om dat de community duidelijk inclusief en activistisch ingesteld is (en dat het niet alleen maar een linkdump is van deprimerende nieuwsberichten o.i.d.)

Overpopulation isn't a problem.

Inadequate and unjust resource distribution is.

Cool, old typography ^^

Metrolijn E, or as I've taken to calling it...

I am looking into automatic transcription quality for SIGPLAN conferences. Please send me your most jargon-filled accent-heavy talks for testing.

(for the record, I do not think it will be good enough, but it'd be nice to get some data on this)

Thoughts on these provocative ideas (about how research in psychology should proceed)?

The last author tipped me off to this one. Curious to hear impressions.

Beyond Playing 20 Questions with Nature: Integrative Experiment Design in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4284943

(also here, behind the BBS paywall: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/beyond-playing-20-questions-with-nature-integrative-experiment-design-in-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences/7E0D34D5AE2EFB9C0902414C23E0C292)

The dominant paradigm of experiments in the social and behavioral sciences views an experiment as a test of a theory, where the theory is assumed to generalize beyond the experiment’s specific conditions. According to this view, which Alan Newell once characterized as “playing twenty questions with nature,” theory is advanced one experiment at a time, and the integration of disparate findings is assumed to happen via the scientific publishing process. In this article, we argue that the process of integration is at best inefficient, and at worst it does not, in fact, occur. We further show that the challenge of integration cannot be adequately addressed by recently proposed reforms that focus on the reliability and replicability of individual findings, nor simply by conducting more or larger experiments. Rather, the problem arises from the imprecise nature of social and behavioral theories and, consequently, a lack of commensurability across experiments conducted under different conditions. Therefore, researchers must fundamentally rethink how they design experiments and how the experiments relate to theory. We specifically describe an alternative framework, integrative experiment design, which intrinsically promotes commensurability and continuous integration of knowledge. In this paradigm, researchers explicitly map the design space of possible experiments associated with a given research question, embracing many potentially relevant theories rather than focusing on just one. The researchers then iteratively generate theories and test them with experiments explicitly sampled from the design space, allowing results to be integrated across experiments. Given recent methodological and technological developments, we conclude that this approach is feasible and would generate more-reliable, more-cumulative empirical and theoretical knowledge than the current paradigm—and with far greater efficiency.