@baohanltn on Bluesky (@baohanltn) - Twitter Profili

Sabitlenmiş Tweet

Happy to announce that I will be joining @TCU this fall as an Experimental Psychology PhD student! Get ready for me, world!

English

947

@baohanltn on Bluesky@baohanltn·10 Şub

@QA_NJ @ValidScience @eric_knowles @jayvanbavel We also learn that correlation does not mean causation, so I don’t think people are assuming a direct link. What you’re referring to (population and SES) are covariates, which are supposed to be controlled for in statistics. When you read the paper, did they control for these?

English

Question Assumptions@QA_NJ·9 Şub

@ValidScience @eric_knowles @jayvanbavel A lot of the things they try to correlate with gun control (suicide, etc.) have to do with population density (it's harder to quickly get to a hospital in rural areas) and/or wealth (richer areas have more resources), including suicide rates.

English

Joe Duarte@ValidScience·9 Şub

So @eric_knowles and @jayvanbavel made wildly false claims in Nature Medicine that people live longer in states with more gun control laws, more Medicaid coverage, and other leftist policies, based on a table showing TWO states. It was just a stupid table with some factoids, nested in a random leftist essay. That was their source. There are 50 states (for now). There was no analysis, no data beyond that stupid table, no regression, nothing. The claims were false on their own terms – there was no source for the claims. They might actually be true if real scientists did the work to find out, but the gun control variable is probably invalid and not workable if you want to look at causation. The number of gun control laws? Deciding how to sort and count laws and regs will be very difficult and it's an absurd variable and extremely vulnerable to rigging. In fact, that's what @Everytown does, but theirs is secret. They make claims based on their secret index of gun control laws – they won't release their data and they won't disclose their variable. What I mean is that any index is going to use weights in addition to having to decide how to sort and code a given state law. Everytown just informally rattles some categories they look at, but they don't disclose the actual variable construction, or their data, so we can assume that they're either just fabricating or their rigging their gun control index variable to get the results they want. Otherwise, why refuse to share their data and variable construction? And positing a causal link between whether crime victims can sue gunmakers because criminals used their guns and greater lifespan is ridiculous, unless you've got a hell of an interesting theory. Yes, Everytown counts those liability laws in their index (but they don't disclose how, the weights, etc.) So does the stupid source of the stupid source that Knowles and Van Bavel cited (Siegel, et al 2017). In any case, Knowles and Van Bavel should retract their paper. You simply cannot claim that people live longer in states that have leftist laws based on some quick descriptives for TWO STATES. That can't be in a journal (though it's no surprise that @NatureMedicine published it – they publish anything that advances leftist narratives and power). Links below.

Joe Duarte@ValidScience

Why do you like this paper specifically? Why should we care about it? Social psychology is saturated with false claims that advance leftist narratives and power, and replication is moot in many cases because the research is invalid. Since social psychologists discriminate against non-leftists, this won't be fixed. Here's an example of false claims from your and @jayvanbavel's paper on health and polarization: You claimed that people live longer in states with more firearm regulations, and you imply that this is causal – the whole premise of your paper is that leftist ideology is rational and beneficial. Your claim about the number of gun laws and lifespan is based on a leftist essay (Montez, 2020). In that essay is a table. In that table are descriptive statistics for two states. Mississippi (of course, given the field's intense prejudices) and New York (of course). A table. With some factoids for two states. That's it. You claimed that people live longer in states with more of your desired gun control laws based on a table with numbers for two states. There was no analysis. There was no data beyond that table. There was no study. There was no regression, no Jostian tautological mediation, nothing. Just that stupid table in leftist essay. The field is saturated with garbage like that – academic leftists have flooded their host civilization with false claims and leftist propaganda. Nothing about replication matters here. (Having leftists code the slant of a study's findings is obviously not going to work either.) Anyway, are you going to correct your false claim in @Nature? I assume you approached the rest of your claims, arrogantly telling the reader how well leftist policies work, with the same lack of rigor. In fact you rattled off several other claims based on that table of two states... So all of your claims there, from Medicaid coverage, to minimum wages, etc. are false since the source doesn't back them up – there was no analysis of states. So you should think about retracting the paper. In the future, if you want to actually know anything each of these very complex topics, like the effect of gun laws on lifespan, you'll need to read quite a lot and dive into the research. It's not possible to know anything about such questions by reading a leftist essay, and a rational person would know to discount any academic claims that support leftist narratives.

English

4.1K

@baohanltn on Bluesky retweetledi