KarenK (she/her)
banner
karenk.bsky.social
KarenK (she/her)
@karenk.bsky.social
480 followers 160 following 1K posts
Weirder than that, but maybe not in the ways you think.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Yay for protesters against gerrymandering
Me, making sure I have my list of medications before leaving the house for a first appointment with a new healthcare provider, "Heels, nails, blade, mascara. Fit check for my napalm era."
Reposted by KarenK (she/her)
Hey folks, it's Jen. I need your help to save my sister.

These are outrageous times, and I find myself writing these words:

Please donate and spread the word, to help my sister fight FEDERAL charges...for vandalism. Of a Tesla dealership. No joke.

www.gofundme.com/f/help-lucy-...
Donate to Save Lucy, A Trans Woman FEDERALLY Charged - Tesla Vandalism, organized by Lucy Nelson
Save Lucy — A Trans Woman Facing Federal Charges for Tesla Va… Lucy Nelson needs your support for Save Lucy, A Trans Woman FEDERALLY Charged - Tesla Vandalism
www.gofundme.com
Our Bosch dishwasher has been much better than our previous two dishwashers.

We had a Bosch oven in the old house that I was sad to move away from
If the conventional wisdom is correct, studies that withstand scrutiny should be easy to find.

Disagreeing with me is completely reasonable. But if you care enough to *tell* me you disagree, please support your point by interacting with me about the details.

9/9
I've had people act like posting a link to a study with a relevant-sounding title is sufficient to prove their point. When I raise a criticism of it, they don't address it; they pivot to posting a link to another study.

That's the fallacy of "appeal to authority".

8/
For any kind of study, how did the authors account for confounding factors? Do the data support the conclusions? Can the experiment design show anything about cause and effect? Does the experiment design make p-hacking difficult?

7/
If it’s a review of the literature or a meta-analysis, how did the authors decide which studies to include?

Did the authors give more weight to studies with more subjects?

Do the authors understand the statistical intricacies of combining studies?

6/
If it’s a novel experiment, was it done on humans? How many subjects were there? How long did the experiment last? If it’s a case study, what makes this case study representative?

5/
What seven questions would I ask about a supporting study? Well the questions vary depending on what type of study it is.

So the first question would be, Is this a novel experiment, a case study, a review of the literature, or a meta-analysis?

4/
If the conventional wisdom is correct, studies that withstand scrutiny should be easy to find.

3/
So I’ve started adding: If you want to argue come prepared with:
1. One clear point
2. supported by one scientific study
3. of which you have read more than the abstract and conclusions
4. and which you're prepared to answer seven questions about.

2/
There are some topics where I disagree with the conventional wisdom. I think I’m right but I’m open to the possibility I might be wrong. However I’m tired of handling bad supporting arguments. I want to hear good ones.

1/
Clark Kent level glasses removal
Vietnam brought the bling
Yeah, the trite, jingoistic schlock is a THING. I grew up close enough to the Twin Towers to hear about people whose spouses died at work. The reverent and unrealistic way some Texans talk about 9/11 is jarring.
It sucks that you have to make that decision
Yay for setting up an inventory system that's lasting!
Thank you for the alt txt descriptions!
Reposted by KarenK (she/her)