Simon Columbus
@simoncolumbus.bsky.social
Lecturer, University of St Andrews | I work on cooperation, norms, institutions, & personality | http://simoncolumbus.com
Yes! Video recordings of all talks are available via our mailing list
January 23, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Yes! Video recordings of all talks are available via our mailing list
A while ago, I came across a bunch of (likely) AI generated papers connected to a paper mill, which all used PLS-SEM. Maybe some AI thinks it's hot shit?
December 20, 2025 at 10:06 PM
A while ago, I came across a bunch of (likely) AI generated papers connected to a paper mill, which all used PLS-SEM. Maybe some AI thinks it's hot shit?
Soziologe ist gar kein Persönlichkeitstyp ;-)
December 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM
Soziologe ist gar kein Persönlichkeitstyp ;-)
Ich würde gerade die Persönlichkeitsmodelle eher als Positivbeispiel sehen, weil sie eben nicht theoriegetrieben, sondern empirisch entwickelt wurden.
Außerdem ballert Persönlichkeit in der Vorhersage alles weg, was es sonst so an individuellen Eigenschaften gibt 😎
Außerdem ballert Persönlichkeit in der Vorhersage alles weg, was es sonst so an individuellen Eigenschaften gibt 😎
December 11, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Ich würde gerade die Persönlichkeitsmodelle eher als Positivbeispiel sehen, weil sie eben nicht theoriegetrieben, sondern empirisch entwickelt wurden.
Außerdem ballert Persönlichkeit in der Vorhersage alles weg, was es sonst so an individuellen Eigenschaften gibt 😎
Außerdem ballert Persönlichkeit in der Vorhersage alles weg, was es sonst so an individuellen Eigenschaften gibt 😎
Wie viele Psychologen lesen denn überhaupt regelmäßig Econ Paper? Mein Eindruck ist, dass selbst Top-Publikationen ignoriert werden (bibliometrische Studien zeigen auch, dass Ökonomen Psychologen deutlich häufiger zitieren als andersherum).
December 11, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Wie viele Psychologen lesen denn überhaupt regelmäßig Econ Paper? Mein Eindruck ist, dass selbst Top-Publikationen ignoriert werden (bibliometrische Studien zeigen auch, dass Ökonomen Psychologen deutlich häufiger zitieren als andersherum).
Sehe ich ähnlich. Wir Psychologen sind zu oft zufrieden damit, die "echte Welt" als Illustration zu verwenden, anstatt direkt an ihr zu forschen. Davon hat sich die VWL mittlerweile größtenteils befreit.
December 11, 2025 at 6:07 PM
Sehe ich ähnlich. Wir Psychologen sind zu oft zufrieden damit, die "echte Welt" als Illustration zu verwenden, anstatt direkt an ihr zu forschen. Davon hat sich die VWL mittlerweile größtenteils befreit.
LLM or not, this is clearly biased in favour of social psychology. E.g. the high ratings on "injunctive" and "descriptive" norms for social psychology relative to economics, which likely reflects the use of psych rather than econ terminology
December 10, 2025 at 10:29 AM
LLM or not, this is clearly biased in favour of social psychology. E.g. the high ratings on "injunctive" and "descriptive" norms for social psychology relative to economics, which likely reflects the use of psych rather than econ terminology
... hold what they call "positivist" research to be epistemologically mistaken and/or unethical. Some of the people I've talked to oppose any integration of their work with quant research. That stance may be principled, but it's hard to engage with their work if one doesn't share this stance.
December 6, 2025 at 3:59 PM
... hold what they call "positivist" research to be epistemologically mistaken and/or unethical. Some of the people I've talked to oppose any integration of their work with quant research. That stance may be principled, but it's hard to engage with their work if one doesn't share this stance.
Doing "both" well (I don't think there's such a thing as quant or qual methods: both are shorthand for more nuanced identities and practices) is just really hard.
But there is also methodological and ethical division, and those might be unbridgable. Some (most?) interpretive scholars genuinely...
But there is also methodological and ethical division, and those might be unbridgable. Some (most?) interpretive scholars genuinely...
December 6, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Doing "both" well (I don't think there's such a thing as quant or qual methods: both are shorthand for more nuanced identities and practices) is just really hard.
But there is also methodological and ethical division, and those might be unbridgable. Some (most?) interpretive scholars genuinely...
But there is also methodological and ethical division, and those might be unbridgable. Some (most?) interpretive scholars genuinely...
I read Daniel's tweet to apply more narrowly to those who oppose efforts in the direction of replicability, but yeah.
(But it's also Daniel Lakens, who has probably tweeted the same thing about Bayesians at some point)
x.com/lakens/statu...
(But it's also Daniel Lakens, who has probably tweeted the same thing about Bayesians at some point)
x.com/lakens/statu...
Daniël Lakens on X: "It is extremely sad to see some qualitative resesrchers take the epistemologicl view that truth is crested, and qualitative resesrch is in principle not replicable. These voices should be severely criticized within the qualitative research community, and preferably driven out. https://t.co/MhAivpp6oy" / X
It is extremely sad to see some qualitative resesrchers take the epistemologicl view that truth is crested, and qualitative resesrch is in principle not replicable. These voices should be severely criticized within the qualitative research community, and preferably driven out. https://t.co/MhAivpp6oy
x.com
December 6, 2025 at 3:41 PM
I read Daniel's tweet to apply more narrowly to those who oppose efforts in the direction of replicability, but yeah.
(But it's also Daniel Lakens, who has probably tweeted the same thing about Bayesians at some point)
x.com/lakens/statu...
(But it's also Daniel Lakens, who has probably tweeted the same thing about Bayesians at some point)
x.com/lakens/statu...
... and practices for qualitative research.
If the complaint is, however, that individual OS practitioners have not adopted qual methods or interpretive epistemologies, that's exactly the kind of methodological and epistemological imperialism so-called positivists are accused of.
If the complaint is, however, that individual OS practitioners have not adopted qual methods or interpretive epistemologies, that's exactly the kind of methodological and epistemological imperialism so-called positivists are accused of.
December 6, 2025 at 3:32 PM
... and practices for qualitative research.
If the complaint is, however, that individual OS practitioners have not adopted qual methods or interpretive epistemologies, that's exactly the kind of methodological and epistemological imperialism so-called positivists are accused of.
If the complaint is, however, that individual OS practitioners have not adopted qual methods or interpretive epistemologies, that's exactly the kind of methodological and epistemological imperialism so-called positivists are accused of.
I just don't think that's an accurate description of what the OS movement has prioritised. If the complaint is that quants built solutions for problems in quant research, the authors here explicitly reject "infiltration". But the resulting infrastructure has been used by quals to create OS tools...
December 6, 2025 at 3:32 PM
I just don't think that's an accurate description of what the OS movement has prioritised. If the complaint is that quants built solutions for problems in quant research, the authors here explicitly reject "infiltration". But the resulting infrastructure has been used by quals to create OS tools...
But that's not a failing of the OS movement, is it? Methodological and epistemological pluralism is difficult to achieve in practice, but that's been an issue long before OS. Talk to quants in majority qual fields and you'll hear exactly the same complaints.
December 6, 2025 at 3:16 PM
But that's not a failing of the OS movement, is it? Methodological and epistemological pluralism is difficult to achieve in practice, but that's been an issue long before OS. Talk to quants in majority qual fields and you'll hear exactly the same complaints.
... while simultaneously practices such as reflexivity are demanded from quants (though typically in the form of accusations).
Ironically, it's exactly those who demand epistemological pluralism from others who spend the most time delegitimising their peers' research as "positivist". 3/3
Ironically, it's exactly those who demand epistemological pluralism from others who spend the most time delegitimising their peers' research as "positivist". 3/3
December 6, 2025 at 2:56 PM
... while simultaneously practices such as reflexivity are demanded from quants (though typically in the form of accusations).
Ironically, it's exactly those who demand epistemological pluralism from others who spend the most time delegitimising their peers' research as "positivist". 3/3
Ironically, it's exactly those who demand epistemological pluralism from others who spend the most time delegitimising their peers' research as "positivist". 3/3