RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…
RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…
RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…
RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…
RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…
Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically interpreting the same research question, leading to inflated analytical flexibility. Lemme try to translate 3 of them into a linguistic
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @Ted_Underwood: You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @Ted_Underwood: You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a…
RT @Ted_Underwood: You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a…
RT @Ted_Underwood: You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a…
You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a useful lesson: there’s often ambiguity in our *research question*. Do we want to measure association, maximize model fit, or estimate a
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @SilverVVulpes: wow, and people were touting that paper as a proof that 'science is fake'. It seems we were fooled, bamboozled, conned…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
wow, and people were touting that paper as a proof that 'science is fake'. It seems we were fooled, bamboozled, conned, misguided. Just wonder, what else are they lying to you about?
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Subjectivity in analysis leads to variable results: A follow up to the Many Analysts study. (Reproducible and open data and analysis is really the answer) #Statistics #OpenScience
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning of soc sci. Maybe I have low expectations? My impression of this reanalysis: more damning & more constructive than original.
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Do ManyLabs studies indicate a fundamental replicability issue in social science? Not necessarily. Kudos @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl on a fascinating and well-described study showing how good theorizing and methods can enhance replicability and accuracy. h
RT @StefanoCoretta: Interesting alternative take on the "Many Analysts, One Data Set" project. The main takeaway from this and the origin…
RT @BoulesteixLaure: An interesting perspective on the well-known study by Silberzahn & Uhlmann, by members of @lmu_osc : Has the Credibi…
Interesting alternative take on the "Many Analysts, One Data Set" project. The main takeaway from this and the original study: we need greater precision in formulating research hypotheses and in their operationalisation. A very positive prospect!!! http
RT @BoulesteixLaure: An interesting perspective on the well-known study by Silberzahn & Uhlmann, by members of @lmu_osc : Has the Credibi…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
An interesting perspective on the well-known study by Silberzahn & Uhlmann, by members of @lmu_osc : Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project - K. Auspurg, J. Brüderl, 2
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @FaffRobert: @PiR2e
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Maybe they needed a...target trial 😎
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @cara__jackson: WOW this is so meta. Points to lack of clarity/precision (in RQs, definitions) as drivers of replication failure.
@PiR2e
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Multiverse reanalysis of ManyAnalystsOneDataSet paper. @page_eco @davdittrich
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
@KieranBalloo hmmm this is interesting ...
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @bahniks: An interesting perspective on the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” project: https://t.co/D23ORF7KnO https://t.co/8n0cUvfZYi
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @cara__jackson: WOW this is so meta. Points to lack of clarity/precision (in RQs, definitions) as drivers of replication failure. http…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @deaneckles: An elaboration on an argument I've made: "many analysts" exercises have suffered from poorly defined research questions tha…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @cara__jackson: WOW this is so meta. Points to lack of clarity/precision (in RQs, definitions) as drivers of replication failure. http…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @cbokhove: Interesting re-analysis of Many Analysts paper, showing importance of clear research questions.
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @cara__jackson: WOW this is so meta. Points to lack of clarity/precision (in RQs, definitions) as drivers of replication failure.
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
Maybe I am missing something, but this doesn't actually change anything for me. The point of the 2018 paper (to me) was that choices about operationalizing the research question can affect the results. 1/
WOW this is so meta. Points to lack of clarity/precision (in RQs, definitions) as drivers of replication failure.
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…
RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…