Assorted Links

Thanks to Hal Pashler and Bryan Castañeda.

4 Replies to “Assorted Links”

  1. “On measuring the males, they found that the testicles of the yogurt consumers were about 5 percent heavier than those of mice fed typical diets alone and around 15 percent heavier than those of junk-eating males.”

    That last adjective is ill-chosen.

  2. Well, I was definitely wrong about priming, thanks.

    Even if Bargh’s counter-arguments are sound, I didn’t think about it enough. All those criticisms are ones I could have made, but didn’t. Moreover, Bargh seems to care more about being responsible for new tech than getting the right answer, presumably for the status benefits. Which means that odds are favour of Doyen and Pashler.

    Especially Pashler, who actually founded a desperately needed resource in his site. Standard journals seem to aggressively avoid replications, which means someone needs to even more aggressively pursue them for our culture to even pretend to have a working scientific tradition.

  3. That priming studies are extremely sensitive is evident o anyone following this literature. it is still about drawing attention and making a really efficient but unnoticed manipulation.

    Thus, replications that have not done it “all right” are a priori expected to fail.

    researchers that do not beleive in the effect, are naturally expected to be the most careful to optimzie primikng effect.

    the main focus of the media (the “failed replication” of old walking slowly) is a priori faulty. Using 30 out of 30 words for priming is not only a “no go” for priming, but shows that the researchers had poor knowledge of how priming works. making us expect less than perfect design in other uncontensted aspects.

    True, bargh response was not wise in many ways. but at the moment the PLoS paper is no “failed replication”.

Comments are closed.