How a middle aged CS major debunked a classic positive psychology finding (2013)
I worked with Nick a few times in a previous job and he was a reviewer on a paper I wrote; he was really nice and professional, and his feedback was constructive and incisive.<p>The movement he's part of is fundamentally disagreeable (in the 'big five' sense [0]), and some of its prominent characters, as you might expect, have reputations for being interpersonally difficult [1]. Collectively they've been labeled "data thugs" [2] and accused of "methodological terrorism" [3], which is why I think Nick's fundamental goodness is an especially valuable asset. We'd gain a ton of social value from certain reforms to the scientific research apparatus, and, IMO, being kind when delivering pointed critiques helps a difficult pill go down. That's different than pulling your punches; it just means staying focused on the thing you actually want to change.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits</a><p>[1] <a href="https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-dumbest-fucking-thing-ive-ever-read-8653e2409ec4" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-dumbest-fucking-thing-ive-e...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/meet-data-thugs-out-expose-shoddy-and-questionable-research" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/meet-data-thugs-out-...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/" rel="nofollow">https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/09/21/what-has-h...</a>