Scott Alexander argues that psychology is indeed in crisis, contrary to a New York Times article's claim, due to issues like publication bias and low replication rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article claiming psychology is not in crisis despite low replication rates. He argues that the article ignores publication bias, experimenter effects, and low base rates of true hypotheses. Scott contends that even if failed replications are due to different conditions, this still represents a crisis as it undermines the practical utility of psychological findings. He suggests that while we can't investigate every failed replication, studying some might reveal why replication issues keep occurring in psychology. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes two conflicting studies on gender bias in STEM hiring, exploring reasons for their contradictory results and the challenges in reaching a definitive conclusion. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses two contradictory studies on gender bias in STEM hiring, one showing bias against women and another showing bias in favor of women. He explores possible reasons for the discrepancy, including differences in methodology and potential experimenter bias. The post highlights the difficulty in reaching a definitive conclusion on this issue despite its importance and the resources dedicated to studying it. Scott suggests that the conflicting results might be due to subtle experimenter effects and proposes a joint study by both teams as a potential solution. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a meta-analysis supporting psychic phenomena to illustrate flaws in scientific methodology and meta-analysis. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines a meta-analysis by Daryl Bem that claims to provide strong evidence for psychic phenomena (psi). While Bem's analysis follows many best practices for scientific rigor, Alexander argues it likely suffers from experimenter effects and other biases that can produce false positive results. He uses this to illustrate broader issues with the scientific method and meta-analysis, concluding that even seemingly rigorous studies and meta-analyses can produce incorrect conclusions. This challenges the idea that scientific consensus and meta-analysis are the highest forms of evidence. Shorter summary