5 ms·

To add to this, the assumptions behind any use of statistics here are wild when applied to pyschology. 1. We assume that people have stable measurable independ

To add to this, the assumptions behind any use of statistics here are wild when applied to pyschology. 1. We assume that people have stable measurable independent properties f1(x1.., t), f2(x1.., t), ... 2. We assume these are modelled by a linear model, f1(t) = ax + b, etc. 3. We assume the parameters (a, b) of this model causally determine `f1` st. each corresponds to an independent cause of `f1` 4. We assume that we have some reliable measurement process, say m, which measures each property producing samples of that a,b: m(f1) = random samples of a,b 5. Then we assume that these samples are representative of the true values, ie., that mean(a samples) = a + random_error The problem with the field is that (1 - 4) are false -- arguing about 5 is a little like arguing what time a broken clock should be set to.

cptaj 3y ago
Psychology is a joke.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  String Theory is a joke.
  - throwaway426079 3y ago
    A psychologist and a physicist walk into a bar...
    - datameta 3y ago
      The psychologist says, "I merely perceived walking into it". The physicist replies, "At the atomic level I did not, technically, touch it."
      - kelipso 3y ago
        Ummm the bar doesn't actually exist.
startupsfail 3y ago
I remember a talk at NIPS, a number of years back, where a psychologist was criticizing statistical approaches used by ML practitioners. And telling us that unlike ML practitioners (who still live in the dark ages), modern psychology researchers had realized their wrongs ways of the past. And now they register their studies and the statistical methodology upfront. They review it, register the experiments and only then conduct these, publishing both positive and negative results of the registered study.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  The issue is that psychologists still do not understand the non-statistical premises of their statistical applications. Without a causal model of a human mind (and its relationship to the world) -- what exactly is there a "statistics" of? You cannot really have a scientific psychology; the necessary experiments are impossible or unethical.

cptaj 3y ago

Psychology is a joke.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
String Theory is a joke.
- throwaway426079 3y ago
  A psychologist and a physicist walk into a bar...
  - datameta 3y ago
    The psychologist says, "I merely perceived walking into it". The physicist replies, "At the atomic level I did not, technically, touch it."
    - kelipso 3y ago
      Ummm the bar doesn't actually exist.

startupsfail 3y ago

I remember a talk at NIPS, a number of years back, where a psychologist was criticizing statistical approaches used by ML practitioners. And telling us that unlike ML practitioners (who still live in the dark ages), modern psychology researchers had realized their wrongs ways of the past. And now they register their studies and the statistical methodology upfront. They review it, register the experiments and only then conduct these, publishing both positive and negative results of the registered study.

mjburgess 3y ago
The issue is that psychologists still do not understand the non-statistical premises of their statistical applications. Without a causal model of a human mind (and its relationship to the world) -- what exactly is there a "statistics" of? You cannot really have a scientific psychology; the necessary experiments are impossible or unethical.