Updating mean and variance estimates
Or is that not bullying because it’s in a peer-reviewed journal?When a published researcher such as Cuddy equates “I don’t believe your claims” with “bullying,” that to me is a problem.Cuddy draws a different conclusion, which is that her study did find a real effect and that the replication by Ranehill et al. I’d say this even before the unsuccessful replication from Ranehill et al. So, according to Cuddy, her publication is so strong it’s worth a book and promotion in NYT, NPR, CBS, TED, etc.
In the meantime, no, I don’t think that referring to a non-peer-reviewed blog is “the worst form of scientific overreach.” I plan to continue to read and refer to the blog of Simonsohn and his colleagues. I don’t agree with everything they write—but, then again, I don’t agree with everything that is published in Psychological Science, either. explain their reasoning carefully and they give their sources. At the very least, we’d have to conclude that any power-pose effect is fragile.What frustrates me is that Cuddy in all her responses doesn’t seem to even consider the possibility that the statistically significant pattern they found might mean nothing at all, that it might be an artifact of a noisy sample. Where does this put Daryl Bem’s work on ESP or that “bible code” paper from a couple decades ago? It’s not clear to me how Simmons, Simonsohn, and I are “bullying” Cuddy.Is it bullying to say that we aren’t convinced by her paper? “bullying” her too, by reporting a non-replication?I’m also interested in how certain media outlets take her claims on faith. Nothing sickening, no extreme overreach, just a claim on my part that, once again, a researcher is being misled by the process in which statistical significance, followed by publication in a major journal, is taken as an assurance of truth. as the starting point in our discussion, just because it was published first. I certainly don’t think of Cuddy as any more of an authority on this topic than are Eva Ranehill, Anna Dreber, etc.The time-reversal heuristic One helpful (I think) way to think about this episode is to turn things around. And I’m guessing it would take a lot to shake the certainty expressed on the matter by team TED.