BigNick
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Maybe this should be under "What do you do all day"...
Some of you may remember that just under two years ago, a few months before my decision to FIRE, I became a student of psychology.
To my surprise, at an early stage of my studies, I discovered something that was badly wrong and needed correcting. So I wrote it up (with a couple of co-authors, one of whom is more or less world-famous) and submitted it to American Psychologist, arguably the leading journal in the field.
Somewhat to my amazement, they have published it.
It's only available online today, but the print version will follow at some point (they have quite a backlog). The cute thing there is that whereas most journals in psychology have a print run of 800 or 1000, American Psychologist prints about 100,000 copies, because it's part of the membership benefits for members of the American Psychological Association. So my words of wisdom (and, most crucially, my sardonic jokes) are going to be in the office, or perhaps the bathroom, of most psychologists in the US!
If you want an idea of what it's about, check out Chapter 7 of this book (pages 120-138: you can see some of those in the Amazon preview and most of the rest at books.google.com). This is the "general audience" version of the work, which is simultaneously mathematical, psychological, and neither of those, that our paper criticises. We demonstrate that the math brought in by a guy from outside is, basically, utterly fraudulent (we weren't allowed to say that in so many words, but the reader is left in little doubt).
Of course, this hasn't stopped the author of that book, in her reply, from claiming that her work is wonderful anyway, even without those meddling kids. Welcome to academic psychology...
Some of you may remember that just under two years ago, a few months before my decision to FIRE, I became a student of psychology.
To my surprise, at an early stage of my studies, I discovered something that was badly wrong and needed correcting. So I wrote it up (with a couple of co-authors, one of whom is more or less world-famous) and submitted it to American Psychologist, arguably the leading journal in the field.
Somewhat to my amazement, they have published it.
It's only available online today, but the print version will follow at some point (they have quite a backlog). The cute thing there is that whereas most journals in psychology have a print run of 800 or 1000, American Psychologist prints about 100,000 copies, because it's part of the membership benefits for members of the American Psychological Association. So my words of wisdom (and, most crucially, my sardonic jokes) are going to be in the office, or perhaps the bathroom, of most psychologists in the US!
If you want an idea of what it's about, check out Chapter 7 of this book (pages 120-138: you can see some of those in the Amazon preview and most of the rest at books.google.com). This is the "general audience" version of the work, which is simultaneously mathematical, psychological, and neither of those, that our paper criticises. We demonstrate that the math brought in by a guy from outside is, basically, utterly fraudulent (we weren't allowed to say that in so many words, but the reader is left in little doubt).
Of course, this hasn't stopped the author of that book, in her reply, from claiming that her work is wonderful anyway, even without those meddling kids. Welcome to academic psychology...
