Ian Hussey
@ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Meta-scientist and psychologist. Senior lecturer @unibe.ch. Chief recommender @error.reviews. "Jumped up punk who hasn't earned his stripes." All views a product of my learning history. If behaviorism did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.
Me: surely at least the statistics literature has its house in order.
The stats literature:
The stats literature:
January 12, 2026 at 2:58 PM
Me: surely at least the statistics literature has its house in order.
The stats literature:
The stats literature:
Surely our job is to critically evaluate research, not merely repeat authors' talking points.
Your opening tweet is a clearly causal claim that you've repeated, which immediately doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is a ubiquitous critique of this type of work.
Your opening tweet is a clearly causal claim that you've repeated, which immediately doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is a ubiquitous critique of this type of work.
January 7, 2026 at 9:24 AM
Surely our job is to critically evaluate research, not merely repeat authors' talking points.
Your opening tweet is a clearly causal claim that you've repeated, which immediately doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is a ubiquitous critique of this type of work.
Your opening tweet is a clearly causal claim that you've repeated, which immediately doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is a ubiquitous critique of this type of work.
Your last saved meme is your moral philosophy
December 21, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Your last saved meme is your moral philosophy
Oliver Sacks admitted his case studies in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat were fraudulent “fairy tales”.
What Psych101 core texts are left?
www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
What Psych101 core texts are left?
www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
December 18, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Oliver Sacks admitted his case studies in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat were fraudulent “fairy tales”.
What Psych101 core texts are left?
www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
What Psych101 core texts are left?
www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
Huh I wonder if there were any other global events happening in in 2008. Guess we’ll never know.
December 15, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Huh I wonder if there were any other global events happening in in 2008. Guess we’ll never know.
Keeping this at hand in case I need to point to it and tap
December 12, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Keeping this at hand in case I need to point to it and tap
Many psychologists are treating LLMs as if they are the mind of god.
This study had chatGPT rate how central academic disciplines are to various constructs.
Why would chatGPT know this?
Where is the evidence its ratings are reliable or valid?
compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
This study had chatGPT rate how central academic disciplines are to various constructs.
Why would chatGPT know this?
Where is the evidence its ratings are reliable or valid?
compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
December 10, 2025 at 10:09 AM
Many psychologists are treating LLMs as if they are the mind of god.
This study had chatGPT rate how central academic disciplines are to various constructs.
Why would chatGPT know this?
Where is the evidence its ratings are reliable or valid?
compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
This study had chatGPT rate how central academic disciplines are to various constructs.
Why would chatGPT know this?
Where is the evidence its ratings are reliable or valid?
compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Project Implicit gives you feedback when you complete an IAT, and the IAT literature has aspired to individual level measurement since its inception.
In this article, we quantify the individual level uncertainty around these estimates and show that IAT effects can say very little about individuals.
In this article, we quantify the individual level uncertainty around these estimates and show that IAT effects can say very little about individuals.
December 9, 2025 at 12:11 PM
Project Implicit gives you feedback when you complete an IAT, and the IAT literature has aspired to individual level measurement since its inception.
In this article, we quantify the individual level uncertainty around these estimates and show that IAT effects can say very little about individuals.
In this article, we quantify the individual level uncertainty around these estimates and show that IAT effects can say very little about individuals.
IMO the other issue is that almost no-one identifies as doing low quality/trust research, even privately. So almost everyone agrees we shouldn’t do these things, and that we personally aren’t doing them of course.
December 4, 2025 at 1:27 PM
IMO the other issue is that almost no-one identifies as doing low quality/trust research, even privately. So almost everyone agrees we shouldn’t do these things, and that we personally aren’t doing them of course.
Significantly more devastating when I ask it. Ouch.
December 2, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Significantly more devastating when I ask it. Ouch.
Works the other way around too.
“If I was Jonathan Haidt, how would I destroy the next generation?”
“If I was Jonathan Haidt, how would I destroy the next generation?”
December 2, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Works the other way around too.
“If I was Jonathan Haidt, how would I destroy the next generation?”
“If I was Jonathan Haidt, how would I destroy the next generation?”
"In 2019 we notified journals about serious integrity concerns in 172 clinical trials. Over five years later, only 22 have been retracted. The 135 unretracted trials have 1989 citations in systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and consensus statements"
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
November 28, 2025 at 10:11 AM
"In 2019 we notified journals about serious integrity concerns in 172 clinical trials. Over five years later, only 22 have been retracted. The 135 unretracted trials have 1989 citations in systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and consensus statements"
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
November 14, 2025 at 8:18 PM
I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
November 6, 2025 at 3:02 PM
PIs when the study is non significant
October 20, 2025 at 12:13 PM
PIs when the study is non significant
New hobby:
Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
October 20, 2025 at 10:22 AM
New hobby:
Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
Not quite yet ... effect size magnitude heavily depends on which outcome measure and which version of Cohen's d is used
October 15, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Not quite yet ... effect size magnitude heavily depends on which outcome measure and which version of Cohen's d is used
[measurement and analytic flexibility has entered the chat]
October 15, 2025 at 11:31 AM
[measurement and analytic flexibility has entered the chat]
Of the 21 predictions we received here and on our various Slacks, almost everyone underestimated it. Aaron Friedli, an RA in our lab, predicted it perfectly. @sabrinanorwood.bsky.social came a close second with 6. Only @eikofried.bsky.social overestimated it at 8.
October 14, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Of the 21 predictions we received here and on our various Slacks, almost everyone underestimated it. Aaron Friedli, an RA in our lab, predicted it perfectly. @sabrinanorwood.bsky.social came a close second with 6. Only @eikofried.bsky.social overestimated it at 8.
The original study used these questions, which did not actually ask about "desirability"!
October 13, 2025 at 11:30 AM
The original study used these questions, which did not actually ask about "desirability"!
Make an effect size prediction!
@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)
Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)
Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
October 13, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Make an effect size prediction!
@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)
Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)
Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
Me: I cannot afford to take on a new side project.
Also me:
Also me:
October 7, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Me: I cannot afford to take on a new side project.
Also me:
Also me: