loonsun

Classic

Specifically its for answering behavioural interview questions which go "tell be about a time you did X and what happened as a result?"

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply you never run RCTs, mostly that it's rarer that other disciplines and most of what lay people know of your science comes from non RCT work. I'll have to take a peak at that paper you linked as it looks interesting.

Your point on natural experiments is on point as they are dreams come true for many social scientists (thought sadly not always pleasant ones in recent times).

I also have to agree this post is pure rage bait. People dunk on social sciences all the time but would have their brains melt trying to learn Structural Equation Modeling and the concept of the Latent variable. My arguments with economists usually comes from my place as an IO psychologist who argues about labour and labour markets not if your science is real. It's sad how many will look st economics as useless in the same breadth they venerate figures like Marx. People need more education not less.

And the outrage over Floyd was in the same city and erupted even more aggressively. The citizens are being more strategic and thoughtful in their dissent this time so it may be more learning than a difference in specific response. While race does change the narrative you're very right that the visibility of the incident seems to be a major factor in the outrage and bridging of the action-intention gap.

Gary Stevenson is also an overconfident blow hard who thinks because he made money on the stock market he knows more than everyone. I'm a psychologist not an economist, I don't like economics, but this is all still wildly off base from what actually happens in academia. Economist don't run randomized control trial (RCT) style experiments. They use completely different techniques with different statistical methods to test assumptions. Are these as high quality for causal reasoning as a RCT study? No absolutely not. However I think the average person would be shocked at how much of every field of science does not confirm their studies to that gold standard and how difficult it is to match that exact specific scenario statistically.

That's also a very good point and a problem even within scientific communities. This is partly tribalism, partly jargon, and partly structural. People identify with a discipline or method, dig in their heels, make new terms for old ideas, dont read work outside of their bubble, and everyone is left confused. I agree the scientific method isn't strict which is a double edged sword. We can't come to perfect truth but only make good faith efforts to approch the mysteries of the universe.

Glad to see its been so good for you, if you have any recommend resources that would be nice

Of is this about Destiny? I didn't know his real name

I've never done neural feedback myself so I'll have to look into it. Medication is only partially effective on me but doesn't help with me improving my behaviours just reducing harmful ones. Probably even if I took meds as a kid it wouldn't have been life changing, everyone is different in that way

I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it's impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It's also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.

Sadly, I'm a psychologist and not an expert in scientific philosophy. The topic is interesting but I haven't deeply read into it so sadly can't help.

Well there is an entire field of philosophy called the "philosophy of science" which tries to determine the ideal way we should conduct science so it's an iterative process. Issue with philosophy (and science but more complicated) is that they are simply ideas but many take them as gospel.