Skip to main content

Everything is fucked: The syllabus, by Sanjay Srivastava (with links to articles)

This syllabus for PSY 607: Everything is Fucked, made the rounds last week. The syllabus is for a course that purports that science is fucked. The course readings are a list of articles and books that hit on the limitations of statistics and research psychology (p-values, shortcomings of meta-analysis, misuse of mediation, replication crisis, etc.). PSY 607 isn't an actual class (as author/psychologist/blogger Srivastava explains in this piece from The Chronicle) but it does provide a fine reading list for understanding some of the current debates and changes in statistics and psychology.  Most of articles are probably too advanced for undergraduates but perfectly appropriate for teaching graduate students about our field and staying up to date as instructors of statistics.
Here is a link to the original blog post/syllabus. 

Here is the syllabus' author on Twitter. He shares all sorts of interesting psychy-statsy ideas and thoughts there and at his blog. 

 In order to provide more than just a link to the original syllabus, I found .pdf versions of the articles cited. If I couldn't find it for free, I didn't include the reading. But do go check out the original, whole syllabus, especially the hilarious introductory paragraphs. 
Week 1: Psychology is fucked
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195-244.
Week 2: Significance testing is fucked
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Verhagen, J., Province, J. M., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2016). Is there a free lunch in inference? Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 520-547.
Week 3: Causal inference from experiments is fucked
Book...no pdf...
Week 4: Mediation is fucked
No pdf...
Week 5: Covariates are fucked
Culpepper, S. A., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with fallible covariates. Psychological Methods, 16, 166-178.
Westfall, J., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PloS one, 11, e0152719.
Week 6: Replicability is fucked
Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531-536.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
Week 7: Interlude: Everything is fine, calm the fuck down
Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science, 251, 1037a.
No pdf...
Week 8: Scientific publishing is fucked
Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891-904.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124.
Week 9: Meta-analysis is fucked
Inzlicht, M., Gervais, W., & Berkman, E. (2015). Bias-Correction Techniques Alone Cannot Determine Whether Ego Depletion is Different from Zero: Commentary on Carter, Kofler, Forster, & McCullough, 2015. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2659409 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2659409
Van Elk, M., Matzke, D., Gronau, Q. F., Guan, M., Vandekerckhove, J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). Meta-analyses are no substitute for registered replications: A skeptical perspective on religious priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
Week 10: The scientific profession is fucked
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,615-631.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ways to use funny meme scales in your stats classes

Have you ever heard of the theory that there are multiple people worldwide thinking about the same novel thing at the same time? It is the multiple discovery hypothesis of invention . Like, multiple great minds around the world were working on calculus at the same time. Well, I think a bunch of super-duper psychology professors were all thinking about scale memes and pedagogy at the same time. Clearly, this is just as impressive as calculus. Who were some of these great minds? 1) Dr.  Molly Metz maintains a curated list of hilarious "How you doing?" scales.  2) Dr. Esther Lindenström posted about using these scales as student check-ins. 3) I was working on a blog post about using such scales to teach the basics of variables.  So, I decided to create a post about three ways to use these scales in your stats classes:  1) Teaching the basics of variables. 2) Nominal vs. ordinal scales.  3) Daily check-in with your students.  1. Teach your students the basics...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rouse, Russel, & Campbell (2025) is a curated list of Psi Chi journals that are perfect for Intro Stats.

This summer, the Psi Chi Journal of Psychology Research published  Rouse, Russel, and Campbell's Beyond the textbook: Psi Chi Journal articles in introductory psychology courses. It is a curated list of paywall-free Psi Chi articles, mostly with student co-authors, that are peer-reviewed and of an appropriate writing level and length to use in an Introduction to Psychology course. The authors provide the following information for each of the articles: In addition to being appropriate for Into Psych, these articles are also perfect for Intro Stats. In my classes, I emphasize the ability to read and write simple result sections. One way I would review this skill is by showing my students Results sections from published research and asking them to identify the test statistics, effect size, and other relevant information. This selection of articles features clear and concise results sections for t -tests, ANOVA, factorial ANOVA, regression, and correlation. I created a spreadsheet...
Post a Comment
Read more

Using pulse rates to determine the scariest of scary movies

  The Science of Scare project, conducted by MoneySuperMarket.com, recorded heart rates in participants watching fifty horror movies to determine the scariest of scary movies. Below is a screenshot of the original variables and data for 12 of the 50 movies provided by MoneySuperMarket.com: https://www.moneysupermarket.com/broadband/features/science-of-scare/ https://www.moneysupermarket.com/broadband/features/science-of-scare/ Here is my version of the data in Excel format . It includes the original data plus four additional columns (so you can run more analyses on the data): -Year of Release -Rotten Tomato rating -Does this movie have a sequel (yes or no)? -Is this movie a sequel (yes or no)? Here are some ways you could use this in class: 1. Correlation : Rotten Tomato rating does not correlate with the overall scare score ( r = 0.13, p = 0.36).   2. Within-subject research design : Baseline, average, and maximum heart rates are reported for each film.   3. ...
Post a Comment
Read more