Yes except replace "experimentalists" with "almost anyone" (Including myself tbqh)

How much heartache would be saved if we routinely used cognitive interviewing/think-aloud procedures when developing instruments? We should know how respondents are interpreting instructions. Just frickin' ask people. It doesn't even need to be particularly rigorous.

Not so sure it was a good idea for me to get on Bluesky. I now have a gazillion tabs open with Things I Absolutely Must Read, and I'm constantly suppressing urges to share my most controversial takes and inane shitposts. Exercising a lot of restraint over here, you're welcome

Came to my first @improvingpsych.org conference hoping to find My People. During the first coffee break, ended up talking with @priyasilverstein.com and @lillianistrying.bsky.social as if we'd known each other for years, and every conversation since then has had similar ease. My heart is full.

I wonder what proportion of bias in the literature is attributable to people more carefully checking null or surprising results and correcting errors, but not checking positive/expected results and missing those errors. A perfectly innocent behavior, but ...

I thought of this meme multiple times within the past 24 hours when it was, unfortunately, inappropriate to giggle in public for no reason

At coffee with @ihandleyminer.bsky.social yesterday, discussed how to do metascience stuff and challenge current practices without being perceived as a jerk. Concluded that one needs to be charming and approachable on a podcast and/or on social media. And we are not starting a podcast. So.