Veli-Matti Karhulahti
@mkarhulahti.bsky.social
310 followers 140 following 550 posts

science, gaming, art (senior researcher at university of jyväskylä)

Psychology 27%
Sociology 20%
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
"Subjectively, the surface of human behavior is phenomenology; objectively it is meaning. Commitment to phenomenology and meaning, despite their scientific impenetrability, is the indelible mark of a human science."
ent3c.bsky.social
Haven't posted much lately-- busy. One of my Substack projects is republishing my chapters from the Kendler and Parnas series on the philosophy of psychiatry. The books are expensive and hard to find. This is, "The Hard Question in Psychiatric Nosology." /1 @awaisaftab.bsky.social

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Priority list helps me a lot-- what matters (for diverse reasons) goes on top regardless of task size & makes easier to push the rest aside

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
it's likely possible to find individual cases from any field but personally wouldn't think psych is comparable to medicine and certainly cannot see anthropology via this lens at all -- but I guess any comparison is an empirical question in the end!

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
looking at psych and related fields that have evolved from abstract theorising & qualitative work to experiments, the strong need to identify as 'science' and active distancing from the past likely keeps them stuck with the status quo for a long while still

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Clickbait captures the problem well but cannot understand why so many smart ppl keep clicking. IMO the solution isn't to prove each clickbait wrong one by one as they come but stop them coming (surely more difficult & entails structural change yet somehow this kind of change isn't-- clickbait-y?)

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
the larger point being: an effect shouldn't be the discovery as such & hence failure to replicate shouldn't be hurtful -- if diverse effects collectively represented larger theoretical programs, single replications would have less power & be more natural ingredients in slow progress

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
As years go by I'm increasingly for the view that this is a very psych thing. The program of discovering "effects" as if they were chemical elements is super weak & almost always lacks interest in underlying explanation that'd require long-term theoretical curiously
devezer.bsky.social
I believe science is much more like art than many scientists are willing to consider. I have a feeling that it would free us to do better science if we embraced this view. I may be mistaken but that's where I am mentally.
ent3c.bsky.social
Haven't posted much lately-- busy. One of my Substack projects is republishing my chapters from the Kendler and Parnas series on the philosophy of psychiatry. The books are expensive and hard to find. This is, "The Hard Question in Psychiatric Nosology." /1 @awaisaftab.bsky.social

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Many journals that I didn't know of earlier, thanks for sharing! the platform's naming is unfortunate tho -- gold OA usually refers to APC'd journals so the name might push some authors away unintentionally
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
I really strongly feel that some fields of research would profit if researchers stopped collecting online data for some time and instead maybe just read a bit outside of their field.
The ‘harm hypothesis’ strikes me as being deeply rooted in contemporary WEIRD values rather than being the result of a specific ‘evolved’ or ‘innate’ instinct or psychological mechanism. And indeed the literature cited to support it seems to suggest this.

Costello & Acerbi cite 5 papers in the paragraph above to support the model:

Stewart-Williams et al., 2024: the sample here consists of Prolific users mostly in the UK.

FeldmanHall et al., 2016: the samples were MTurk users in the US and volunteers in the UK.

Curry et al., 2004: the sample is convicted offenders in Texas in 1991.

Graso et al., 2023: US MTurk users again.

Graso & Reynolds, 2024: this is a review paper which does make some cross-cultural claims, but when you check the references you can see some important limitations. For example, they write that “Across cultures, women were perceived as less powerful than men but were seen more positively,” and when you check the reference it goes to Glick et al., 2004, which samples from 16 nations. However, when you read that paper they note in the methods that, “Most samples consisted primarily of college students participating for extra credit.”

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Doesn't look bright on the other side either. Pretty sure we're reaching the end of an era with peer review as now is -- curious to see which major stakeholder comes out as first with the guts to try something else, risking their stock value

bsky.app/profile/mkar...
mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Made a new record this week re how many invitations had to be sent to obtain three good reviewers: 49 -- i don't use any automated senders so each person was individually selected by me, and won't doubt that all 46 refused to review for the good reason of being busy

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
of course there's nothing more claimable in stats vs other epistemic activities -- perhaps stats jargon should also incorporate more often "we argue" instead of claiming to confirm and falsify

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
epistemically, stats are easy to transform into "claims" whereas describing, organising, theorising & many other kinds of work are often left to make "arguments" -- a key rhetoric diff when it comes to press release and discovery

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Major journals using statistics as a proxy for impact & quality these days nicely reflects academia's attention economy at the cost of being interested in explaining things
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
My hottest academic take is that we shouldn’t be using statistics in the vast majority of papers.
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
My hottest academic take is that we shouldn’t be using statistics in the vast majority of papers.
ingorohlfing.bsky.social
How randomisation has changed the British Academy’s approach to research funding
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
Another funding org exploring randomization of awards among proposal exceeding a certain threshold.
The pool of applicants and recipients was more diverse after the policy change 1/

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
in the end, it comes to the older philosophical question of the addiction field, ie when should behaviour for person Y be considered clinical/diagnosable-- outside clear cases, one's usually forced to rely on some cultural norms of deviancy, which is tough for scientists to accept & manage

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
some ppl have tried to overcome this by adding extra items asking whether X use is causing them significant harm (with ref to the DSM premise that disorders should cause distress/impairment) but that's ofc missing the point

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
in this field's case a key problem is that common items don't tap directly into health but rather ask about aspects of "use" -- they might form some constructs of intensive use but we still wouldn't know how that's related to health (if at all)

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
It's a lovely paper -- if I recall right, the point was in the optics: it might be able to measure something but assuming such something (here "addiction") is bad by default cannot be assessed by psychometrics alone

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Whenever I see papers like these the lack of both hypotheses & tests are striking -- science happens in interesting ways when ppl who are genuinely interested do their best

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
unfortunately all from the same domain of tech use psych (but would indeed expect PCI to have many completed stage2s from other thematic psych areas too)

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
PCIRR should have ~100 of these, as all stage1s are public & almost all have open data too, the tests are common -- how many do you need?

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Finally a job opening for an analytic philosopher

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
Very interesting if EU sets social media age limits. Relative to how impactful such decisions (both limiting & not) can be for human development and society, the scale of genuinely dedicated research feels rather small.

www.politico.eu/article/von-...
Von der Leyen calls for minimum age to access social media
Commission chief throws weight behind calls to ban social media use for kids.
www.politico.eu

mkarhulahti.bsky.social
It's amazing how it's still possible to make these processes so difficult -- noticed the same when trying to reject AI & unsubscribe from other sites they enforce re-login, while all other changes/engagement allowed directly (i think this explicitly violates GDPR)
mellimo.bsky.social
Academia.edu is changing its Terms and Conditions, and they're so outrageous (AI training; signing over ownership to them etc) I closed my account today.

A thread with some practical tips if you want to delete your account (5 steps):