Quantitative research is inherently violent.
Do you not see what “data scraping” has done to Twitter?
It’s utterly destroyed it.
And for what?
To “show” that “conservatives retweet conservatives”?
Thanks for the insight.
Use qualitative methods and we can have nice things.
Cool new paper by Nielsen, @IsabelThielmann, & Pfattheicher, showing that the mean outperforms all other statistics (e.g. median) in a psychometric context (of 32 scales) in 1-year test-retest reliability and other analyses of predictive power.
https://t.co/OmLqrOarYR
Hey, you -- yeah, with the ADHD and the cool projects! You know how all of those projects are, like, 80% done? And how you can't figure out how to get them over the line? And how frustrating that is?
The following thread contains an infohazard, proceed at your peril! ;)
If you're wondering, when cancer cells are killed by chemo, they break apart and then the actual atoms and molecules get filtered out by the kidneys.
So, cancer survivors, you peed your cancer into the fucking toilet and flushed it into the sewer. WHICH IS WHAT IT DESERVED.
Tired of writing your intro last? Write it first (or near first, with Methods) with #RegisteredReports, where your intro reflects the rationale for pursuing the project, and not a posthoc amalgamation of literature that makes your results look like they make sense. #OpenScience
We gave GPT 464 moral scenarios from past papers, and asked it to make moral judgments--they correlated .95 with human ratings
Because GPT (almost) perfectly captures human judgment, we wondered: can AI LLMs replace participants in the study of the mind?
New at @TrendsCognSci
Researchers pittted ChatGPT against genuine doctors, using actual patient questions.
ChatGPT was more accurate and more empathetic.
By a lot.
HT @adamcifu
https://t.co/Z7P2UkDpIR