Ecosyste.ms: Awesome

An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.

Awesome Lists | Featured Topics | Projects

https://github.com/danilofreire/everything-is-fucked

Just a a copy of Sanjay Srivastava's faux course on the current state of fuckedness in psychology. For private purposes only.
https://github.com/danilofreire/everything-is-fucked

fucked mediation meta-analyses psychology rct reproducibility science syllabus

Last synced: about 21 hours ago
JSON representation

Just a a copy of Sanjay Srivastava's faux course on the current state of fuckedness in psychology. For private purposes only.

Awesome Lists containing this project

README 

        
# Everything is Fucked - The Syllabus



This repository is a copy of [Sanjay Srivastava](http://twitter.com/hardsci)'s faux [course on the current state of fuckedness in psychology](https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucked-the-syllabus/). For private purposes only.



------------



PSY 607: Everything is Fucked



[Prof. Sanjay Srivastava](https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucked-the-syllabus/)



Class meetings: Mondays 9:00 – 10:50 in 257 Straub



Office hours: Held on Twitter at your convenience ([@hardsci](http://twitter.com/hardsci))



In a much-discussed article at Slate, social psychologist Michael Inzlicht told a reporter, “Meta-analyses are fucked” ([Engber, 2016](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html)). What does it mean, in science, for something to be fucked? Fucked needs to mean more than that something is complicated or must be undertaken with thought and care, as that would be trivially true of everything in science. In this class we will go a step further and say that something is fucked if it presents hard conceptual challenges to which implementable, real-world solutions for working scientists are either not available or routinely ignored in practice.



The format of this seminar is as follows: Each week we will read and discuss 1-2 papers that raise the question of whether something is fucked. Our focus will be on things that may be fucked in research methods, scientific practice, and philosophy of science. The potential fuckedness of specific theories, research topics, etc. will not be the focus of this class per se, but rather will be used to illustrate these important topics. To that end, each week a different student will be assigned to find a paper that illustrates the fuckedness (or lack thereof) of that week’s topic, and give a 15-minute presentation about whether it is indeed fucked.



Grading:



20% Attendance and participation



30% In-class presentation



50% Final exam



**Week 1: Psychology is fucked**



Meehl, P. E. (1990). [Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable](http://prx.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/content/66/1/195.full.pdf). _Psychological Reports_, 66, 195-244.



**Week 2: Significance testing is fucked**



Cohen, J. (1990). [Things I have learned (so far)](http://www.stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/Cohen1990.pdf) _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?](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/10.1111/tops.12214/abstract) _Topics in Cognitive Science_, 8, 520-547.



**Week 3: Causal inference from experiments is fucked**



Chapter 3 from: Bollen, K. A. (1989). [_Structural equations with latent variables_](http://libgen.io/search.php?req=Structural+equations+with+latent+variables&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def). New York: Wiley.



**Week 4: Mediation is fucked**



Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). [Yes, but what’s the mechanism?(don’t expect an easy answer)](http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/BullockGreenHa2010.pdf). _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_, 98, 550-558.



**Week 5: Covariates are fucked**



Culpepper, S. A., & Aguinis, H. (2011). [Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with fallible covariates](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51074175_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](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152719). _PloS one_, 11, e0152719.



**Week 6: Replicability is fucked**



Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). [Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined](http://pps.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/content/7/6/531.full.pdf+html). _Perspectives on Psychological Science_, 7, 531-536.



Open Science Collaboration. (2015). [Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science](http://science.sciencemag.org.sci-hub.cc/content/349/6251/aac4716). _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.”](http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/gilbert_king_pettigrew_wilson_2016_with_appendix.pdf) _Science_, 251, 1037a.



Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). [Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?](http://sci-hub.cc/10.1037/a0039400) _American Psychologist_, 70, 487-498.



**Week 8: Scientific publishing is fucked**



Fanelli, D. (2011). [Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries](http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.cc/article/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7). _Scientometrics_, 90, 891-904.



Ioannidis, J. P. (2005).[ Why most published research findings are false](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124). _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:  or 



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](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01365/full). _Frontiers in Psychology_, 6.



**Week 10: The scientific profession is fucked**



Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). [The rules of the game called psychological science](http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/543.full.pdf). _Perspectives on Psychological Science_, 7, 543-554.



Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). [Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability](http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/615.full.pdf+html). _Perspectives on Psychological Science_, 7, 615-631.



**Finals week**



Wear black and bring a #2 pencil.