Sebastian Trautmann
LightNews LightNews
banner
strautmann.bsky.social
Sebastian Trautmann
@strautmann.bsky.social
1.4K followers 620 following 11 posts
Clinical Psychologist, Psychotherapist Professor @Medical School Hamburg
Interested in traumatic experiences, emotion regulation, psychotherapy research and research methods
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Everyone should use {marginaleffects} because it includes s-values
A screenshot showing the output of the marginaleffects R package. Included is the s-value.
November 25, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
dszlosek.bsky.social
S-Values are much more interpretable than P-values, yet adoption seems near impossible. I wonder what it would take to make the leap? #statssky #episky #rstats #statistics
October 10, 2025 at 3:50 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
smittermeier.bsky.social
Offener Brief gegen die zunehmende unkritische Nutzung von KI an deutschen Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen - bitte teilen! openletter.earth/gegen-die-un...
Gegen die unkritische Anwendung und Implementierung sog. Künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in der deutschen Wissenschaft und im Hochschulalltag
openletter.earth
November 20, 2025 at 1:08 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
kevinmking.bsky.social
This is a damn good paper by @anthonystevend.bsky.social on reporting and thinking and testing effect sizes in a thoughtful and principled way.
thenewstats.bsky.social Bob C-J and Geoff Cumming @thenewstats.bsky.social · 2d
Here's a nice discussion of effect sizes in cognitive neuroscience, with real examples and an discussion of using null intervals. Lots of good advice here; if you've been interested in inference by interval, this is a great resource.

#Neuroskyence #stats

doi.org/10.1016/j.dc...
Redirecting
doi.org
November 23, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
psychscience.bsky.social
Researchers are studying how people navigate risk in today’s world.
Check out this list of the 100 most common risky choices of everyday life included in a recent study published in Psychological Science @renatofrey.mstdn.science.ap.brid.gy
The Risky Choices of Modern Life
A new study compiles an inventory of the 100 most common risky choices of everyday life, creating a framework that scientists can use to study risk and uncertainty in the modern world.
www.psychologicalscience.org
November 21, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
ploederl.bsky.social
Paper now published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
Longer thread below!
www.jclinepi.com/article/S089...
@markhoro.bsky.social @joannamoncrieff.bsky.social @richlyus.bsky.social @floriannaudet.bsky.social
November 21, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
laurenshallion.bsky.social
Just accepted at Nature Mental Health:

Crises and Opportunities for Psychological Science under Fascism

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nz42x_v3

1/9
This manuscript has been provisionally accepted for publication at Nature Mental Health. Please cite as: Hallion, L. S., Lorenzo-Luaces, L., Crowell, S., Gruber, J., Boisseau, C. L.., Perillo, A. D., Perillo, J. T., Delawalla, C. (in press). Crises and opportunities for psychological science under fascism. Nature Mental Health. Abstract Psychopathology research and treatment is at a crucial juncture. Particularly within the United States, funding for scientific research has been cut drastically; academic freedom is under attack; and efforts to diversify our workforce and mitigate our field's contributions to systemic oppression have been banned outright. Ideologies vie for dominance, with reactionary centrism and institutional capitulation increasingly evident. Gaslighting plays a central role in our politics (academic, national, and beyond), but it is virtually unacknowledged within our science. At the same time, diamonds are formed under pressure. Our collective reckoning brings with it the potential for non-incremental improvements in our ability to assess, diagnose, and treat patients. These improvements arrive in the form of opportunities for paradigm shifts, particularly those involving acknowledging the gaslighting our field perpetuates; resourcefulness in conducting research; values-realignment; coalition-building within and across fields and institutions; and dissemination and outreach.
November 7, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
datavisfriendly.bsky.social
#rstats #dataviz #multivariate
A new vignette for the {candisc} package describes
multivariate visualization methods using data on aesthetic ratings of classical painters.
friendly.github.io/candisc/arti...
Multivariate Visualization of Painters Style
friendly.github.io
November 22, 2025 at 3:10 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
amreibahr.bsky.social
Der #Forschungsausschuss des Bundestags tagt nicht mehr öffentlich — das war’s dann mit Tranzparenz wissenschaftspolitischen Handelns auf Bundesebene! Erschwert die Arbeit von Journalist_innen ebenso wie unsere für #IchBinHanna uvm. massiv. @wpk.bsky.social fordert in 1 offenen Brief, das zu ändern:
Offener Brief an die Bundestagsfraktionen von CDU/CSU, SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und Die Linke zur Rückkehr der grundsätzlichen Öffentlichkeit der Sitzungen des Forschungsausschusses
An die Vorsitzenden der Bundestagsfraktionen von CDU/CSU, SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und Die Linke Berlin, 19.11.2025 Öffentlichkeit im Bundestagsausschuss für Forschung, Technologie, Raumfahrt und T...
wpk.org
November 21, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
socialdiginomad.bsky.social
1/14
Im Wissenschaftssystem entstehen durch Befristungen, Unterbesetzungen, strukturelle Prekarität keine Vakuumsituationen, sondern informelle Verschiebungen von Arbeit, Verantwortung, Macht.
Diese Diffusion stabilisiert das System auf Kosten derer, die am wenigsten abgesichert sind.
#IchBinHanna
November 19, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
olivierdesmedt.bsky.social
Very excited to introduce InteroMap, a new bodily mapping tool designed to measure how we subjectively experience our bodily sensations, what we call interoceptive phenomenology 🧵👇
November 18, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
ploederl.bsky.social
BTW, I can recommend to get familiar with this one:
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...
It helps to judge the trustworthiness of RCTs
INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials
Precis The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or fi...
www.medrxiv.org
November 14, 2025 at 6:56 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
adambonica.bsky.social
4/🧵 The generational shift isn't just among white Americans. Young Asian and Hispanic Americans show the same pattern: dramatic declines in racial resentment across education, gender, geography, and religion. This is a broad, multi-racial generational transformation.
Racial Resentment Among Hispanic and Asian Americans by Birth Year and Demographics This figure contains four line charts showing racial resentment scores (standardized 2-item scale) across birth years from 1940 to 2000 among Hispanic and Asian Americans, with separate trendlines for demographic subgroups. Y-axis ranges from low to high resentment; X-axis shows birth year with approximate ages. Education panel: Two lines show that non-college individuals consistently report higher racial resentment than college-educated individuals. Both groups trend upward from younger to older cohorts, with the gap largest among older generations. Gender panel: Male and female lines rise gradually with older cohorts. Males show slightly higher resentment than females across most cohorts, though the gap narrows among older groups. Geography panel: Four regional lines (South, West, Midwest, Northeast) show modest differences. The South and Midwest trend slightly higher than the West and Northeast, and all regions show increasing resentment among older cohorts. Religion panel: Protestants display the highest resentment levels, followed by Catholics. Non-affiliated respondents have the lowest and flattest trend, with little increase across cohorts. Protestants show the steepest age-related rise. At the bottom, the source notes this is from the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (CES) using GAM-smoothed trendlines.
November 14, 2025 at 8:44 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
p-hunermund.com
Great perspective from #CDSM2025: causal inference is 'what-if' analysis. You don’t have to get everything perfect—or how dare you use the c-word. What matters is laying out your assumptions transparently and showing us what happens when they're violated.
November 15, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
wiringthebrain.bsky.social
Calibrating scientific skepticism www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/cali... - I wrote this a few years ago in relation to claims of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans, but the issues relate equally to the kind of microbiome studies we assess in the paper linked below...
Calibrating scientific skepticism – a wider look at the field of transgenerational epigenetics
I recently wrote a blogpost examining the supposed evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TGEI) in hu...
www.wiringthebrain.com
November 15, 2025 at 10:04 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
dsquintana.bsky.social
Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...
Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.
November 14, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
statsepi.bsky.social
Nice one, from @drg.bsky.social and @jamesheathers.bsky.social

link.springer.com/article/10.1...
“Cake causes herpes?” - promiscuous dichotomisation induces false positives - BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background Continuous biomedical data is often dichotomized into two or more groups for analysis, despite long-standing warnings from statisticians that this constitutes bad practice. This dichotomisa...
link.springer.com
November 13, 2025 at 7:46 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
tam-pham.bsky.social
Heart rate variability (HRV) is one of the widely used physiological measures in psychophysiological research. But with over 100 indices to choose from, how do we know which ones to use?

In our latest paper, we take a data-driven approach to help answer this.

doi.org/10.1111/psyp...
1/
November 12, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
syeducation.bsky.social
A quick (1000 words) read to enjoy with your morning coffee or afternoon tea:

"Psychology wants to stay WEIRD, not go WILD"

Why hasn't psychology diversified it samples, methods, theories, etc.? Because it doesn't want to. osf.io/preprints/ps...
Screenshot of the article, "Psychology wants to stay WEIRD, not go WILD"
November 13, 2025 at 2:59 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
cellpress.bsky.social
The link between the gut #microbiome and autism is not backed by science, researchers say.

Read the full opinion piece in @cp-neuron.bsky.social: spkl.io/63322AbxpA

@wiringthebrain.bsky.social, @statsepi.bsky.social, & @deevybee.bsky.social
First page of Opinion piece: "Conceptual and methodological flaws undermine claims of a link between the gut microbiome and autism"
November 13, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
jnfrltackett.bsky.social
Y'all. N>3,800. !!!!!!!

Goodness gracious.
psyarxivbot.bsky.social PsyArXivBot @psyarxivbot.bsky.social · 12d
When do interaction/moderation effects stabilize in linear regression?: https://osf.io/35t84
November 12, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
thementalelf.bsky.social
🌍 Alcohol causes 2.6 million premature deaths each year, yet remains the world’s favourite drug. 🍺

A major Lancet Public Health study shows most countries are far off WHO’s 2030 target to cut drinking by 20%.

🧵 THREAD

#PublicHealth #Addiction #AlcoholPolicy #GlobalHealth
November 13, 2025 at 7:41 AM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
lmu-klips.bsky.social
(1/11)
Do trauma-focused interventions change what we remember – or only how we remember it?
In her dissertation, @milenaaleksic.bsky.social explored this question through a series of experimental studies.
November 12, 2025 at 3:17 PM
Reposted by Sebastian Trautmann
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇
November 12, 2025 at 10:31 AM