Draisaitl laughing at Spec's question... "That's not a thing in hockey." 😂😂😂😂 #letsgooilers

In a prior piece, I argued that “Preregistration Isn’t the Chief Executive of Science, It’s a Small Part of the Quality Control Department.” This piece seemed to really hit a nerve with the preregistration crowd, who pushed back quite a bit against my arguments. In my follow-up piece, I deal with the rebuttals they sent me. As you’ll see if you read my new post, their evidence moved the needle for me in one (small) regard…but generally was not convincing. If their goal was to persuade me that preregistration can serve a small-but-important function, then yes, this was persuasive. If their goal was to persuade me that preregistration needs to be a central part of psychological science, then this set of evidence and arguments was an abject failure. A summary of my arguments: (1) The moral panic used to justify preregistration to begin with is largely manufactured and not evidentiary. (2) There is substantially more evidence that stereotype threat is real than there is that preregistration passes its own manipulation check. (3) The primary evidence the preregistration crowd puts forward is not based in the right metric to evaluate science, and they seem curiously disinterested in providing the right tests. (4) A lot of their arguments boil down to declarations of “normative power” that are not persuasive at all. (5) They have created a very stifling, cult-like atmosphere where it is hard for empiricists like me to work. I present a great deal of evidence and analysis to justify each of the points above. A theme that cuts across many of these arguments is that preregistration advocates really want rigid tests – except for tests that apply to their own beliefs about preregistration. They seem conveniently unwilling to take their own purported standards of science and apply those standards to their own stated beliefs. Do not read my piece lightly. My prior piece was a quick read designed to start a conversation. This piece is quite different: It is a comprehensive review of the available evidence and argument that is over 23,000 (!) words long. I take pains to cover what I believe are the central issues in great detail. But if you want a summary, it is this: I do believe preregistration can be valuable if it stays in its lane; but making it the center of any scientific enterprise is an unverified idea at best, and a disastrous idea at worst. If you want to know the details as to why I think that, read the piece itself. And if you don’t read the piece, then I’d refrain from comment altogether because you don’t even have the basic facts that constitute my arguments. theapologeticprofessor.subst… @robsica @PsychRabble @ExtravertedFace @BorkNathanial @saltypsych @CJFerguson1111 @PTetlock @Russwarne @ValidScience @LindaSkitka @eric_knowles @tomstello_ @jayvanbavel @primalpoly @FriedrichHayek @bullfranx @CostelloWilliam @BartAndrews @DrThomasAG @alexsanchez541 @PageLyndon @ZachG932 @ImHardcory @minzlicht @awilson_WLU @ChrisCrandall19 @natehoneycutt @BrandonLukeMc

Her family raised her very well.