Live data from Hacker News

No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

pnas.org

241–246 of 246 posts

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting -- the problem may be a misapplication of funnel plots for metaanalysis. I'm not sure what theta is representing and only skimmed the paper, but especially in social scenarios and across social papers, seems unlikely to assume the same distributions and parameters across tasks & populations. Sometimes comes down to 'is there any effect??' and sometimes a precise notion of effect size in a lucky/clever spe…

Both the authors of this study and meta-analysts generally have followup responses and other diagnostics and models that work under degraded assumptions, so I don't think it makes a ton of sense to respond to "this is the absolute most introductory example of why this kind of intuition works" with "it doesn't work in case". There are a variety of ways to think through what data looks like under publication bias or no…

it's one thing to reject a meta analysis, and i'm rarely suprised at that. i'm not a fan in general, as i've seen many break down when you dig in, even in seemingly 'nice' areas like whether medicine x works on disease y.

it's another to reject the underlying phenomena because of metaanalysis.

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#242
Hi all,

I'm one of the authors of the reply and it was very interesting reading so many diverse thoughts and comments. I would love to respond to all of them, but it would take ages. Luckily, Stuart Ritchie (@StuartJRitchie) wrote an awesome post on his substack (https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p/nudge-meta) that goes much deeper and adresses many questions and the fair critique raised here.

Also, note that there is only a limited amount of information and nuance you can comprise into a strict 500 words reply limit in PNAS, which is the reason we focus only on one aspect of the original meta-analysis -- publication bias.

Cheers, Frantisek

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#243
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet here you are responding in a thread with the conclusion clearly stated: >means it’s past time to reform a large chunk of academia. And you're taking exception to it, but now just claiming you're actually not, that these one sentence "you're wrong" responses are really something much more modest. Out of interest do you work in the field? Have ties as a graduate to one of the departments? Or are you completely…

> past time to reform a large chunk of academia >> And you're taking exception to it TameAntelope was addressing premises to that conclusionary comment. If the premises do not hold, then TameAntelope does not need to address that conclusion.

>If the premises do not hold

But they do tho'

/tips hat to TameAntelope's style

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#244
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet here you are responding in a thread with the conclusion clearly stated: >means it’s past time to reform a large chunk of academia. And you're taking exception to it, but now just claiming you're actually not, that these one sentence "you're wrong" responses are really something much more modest. Out of interest do you work in the field? Have ties as a graduate to one of the departments? Or are you completely…

I think you’re on the wrong comment chain, friend…

Hey that's just what I said to you! Great minds etc.

Hitch your wagon to Cass Sustein et. al. by all means... Famously successful and successfully famous. What else do you need to know? ESP might be a thing too, nobody has proved it isn't. But we have shut down the research departments at universities involved in that BS...

https://www.google.com/search?q=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmod...

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#245
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> past time to reform a large chunk of academia >> And you're taking exception to it TameAntelope was addressing premises to that conclusionary comment. If the premises do not hold, then TameAntelope does not need to address that conclusion.

>If the premises do not hold But they do tho' /tips hat to TameAntelope's style

TameAntelope's comment did have substance. Give it another read,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32218408

Re: No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias

#246
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the premises do not hold But they do tho' /tips hat to TameAntelope's style

TameAntelope's comment did have substance. Give it another read, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32218408

one of them did, kind of, sure. Then subsequently no substance or support. Give the thread another read.
Post reply on HN