3 ms·
I didn't say that the methodology was not standard practice or methodologically sound. I said you misrepresented the study, which you did. You said "Most social
by begemotz 3y ago
I didn't say that the methodology was not standard practice or methodologically sound. I said you misrepresented the study, which you did. You said "Most social sciences have numbers that are far better than psychology's." in the context of a conversation about *replication numbers*. You did not say "in a prediction market, participants ("recruited through a number of mailing lists, Twitter and blog posts") have lower replication expectation rates for Psychology than other social sciences" -- if you had then, well, you wouldn't have misrepresented the study.
- qsort 3y agoAny meta-study trying to get replication numbers would likely use a combination of methods, including prediction markets, with techniques like having a small fraction of the contracts resolve. So no, implying this is a Twitter poll is a far worse misrepresentation than even the most uncharitable interpretation of what I said.
- begemotz 3y ago> Any meta-study trying to get replication numbers would likely use a combination of methods, including prediction markets, with techniques like having a small fraction of the contracts resolve." this is non-nonsensical obfuscation. poor attempt at moving the goal posts -- for the record I did not imply, I DIRECTLY QUOTED from the article.