Tomas Formo Langkaas
LightNews LightNews
banner
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Tomas Formo Langkaas
@tflangkaas.bsky.social
1.8K followers 1.3K following 450 posts
Clinical psychologist by trade. Interested in mental health, science, visual communication, emotions, music theory. Self-diagnosed introvert. Lives in Norway. Enjoys the outdoors.

Occasional researcher: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-sSXrIgAAA
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Tomas Formo Langkaas @tflangkaas.bsky.social · Nov 3
Good to know I'm way ahead on this. Haven't published anything in years.
aaronjfisher.bsky.social Aaron Fisher @aaronjfisher.bsky.social · Nov 3
I completely agree that people should be publishing less—to increase the quality of the work, to reduce content redundancy, to reduce burden on the editorial system. But I want to emphasize every chance I get: You do NOT need pubs to get into grad school. Please, let's stop this myth now.
hollysully.bsky.social Holly Sullivan-Toole @hollysully.bsky.social · Nov 3
The change is palpable. I've worked for people (not much older than me) who only had a couple first authors when they got their TT job. Every post-doc I know has way more than that. Now it seems like people have to have a couple first authors to even get into some grad programs.
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
jdwilko.bsky.social
Why does every target trial emulation study have to include a bit that says "this shows how great target trial emulation is. RCTs are non-generalisable and expensive"? Imagine if every RCT said "this shows how great RCTs are. We did not have to rely on strong, untestable assumptions".
November 27, 2025 at 12:05 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
astrokatie.com
I don’t know if anyone else notices or cares, but when I see a presentation in which the speaker uses obviously generated-AI images to illustrate their slides, it makes me immediately less confident in whatever other content they’re presenting.
November 28, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
eivindtraedal.bsky.social
"Ytre høyre ønsker seg et etnisk rent land. Det er en av de farligste idéene i menneskehetens historie, som har ført til ufattelige grusomheter, og den må avvises kontant av en samlet norsk offentlighet"
write.as/eivindtraeda...
"Remigrasjon" betyr etnisk rensing
Det er bra *Mahmoud FarahmandK\F)** tar til orde for et "flomvern" mot ytre høyres ønske om etnisk rensing, eller "remigrasjon", som de n...
write.as
November 28, 2025 at 10:33 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
aninehartmann.bsky.social
Ja, for hvorfor ta seg tid til å aggregere og anonymisere forskningsdataene, når du likevel har forsket ulovlig?
Studien skulle være anonymisert – Kristopher kjente seg selv igjen
Ifølge forskerne kan ingen enkeltpersoner gjenkjennes i studien om transpersoner. Men Kristopher mener han har funnet igjen både seg selv og vennene sine.
www.forskning.no
November 26, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
gordonhodsonphd.bsky.social
#AcademicSky #PsycSciSky #Metascience

How psychologists handle sampling, measurement, & statistical test assumptions
calvin & hobbes, doing safety tests, ignoring that have none and going down hill anyway
November 25, 2025 at 1:38 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
doremus-schafer.bsky.social
3/ Har forskerne som inkluderer dette spørsmålet som et mulig tilfelle av psykosenære symptomer, noensinne gått på en ungdomsskole eller videregående skole? www.fhi.no/globalassets...
November 25, 2025 at 1:13 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
olivia.science
So the USA plans to fabricate their science going forward? If they do, they'll really be able to behave as if they fully don't need scientific evidence anymore. They can just pump out pseudoscience, like antivaxx articles "made by LLMs".

See doi.org/10.31234/osf... for the case in psychology.

1/n
Table 1 https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1 Table 2 https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1
November 25, 2025 at 3:59 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
Most scientists don't understand how effect sizes work and are therefore far too quick to dismiss "small" effects.

A correlation of .03 between taking aspirin & prevention of future heart attacks implied the prevention of 85 attacks in a sample of 10,845 people
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
November 23, 2025 at 7:07 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
tuomaspernu.bsky.social
I'm constantly reminded of this:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...
November 22, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
hansvang.bsky.social
Bra at Danby Choi får prate på riksdekkende tv to-tre ganger i uka om hvordan han ikke kommer til orde.
November 22, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
noelreports.com
Former Finnish PM Sanna Marin put it bluntly: “To end the conflict, Russia must leave Ukrainian territory.”

Just one point. Nothing more to discuss.
November 21, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
aninehartmann.bsky.social
I vår ble jeg den aller første til å anmelde konverteringsterapi etter forbudet som ble vedtatt av Stortinget for to år siden.

I dag ble saken henlagt av Statsadvokaten.

De mener at konverteringsterapi utført av helsepersonell mot transpersoner er *straffritt* etter det nye forbudet.

🧵⬇️
November 19, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Our paper, that we worked hard to produce before the second wave, estimated that 21,000 excess deaths were caused by the 1 week delay in lockdown.

The paper was held up & eventually rejected by the Lancet. By the time it came out it could only offer a post mortem.

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
November 20, 2025 at 9:26 PM
tflangkaas.bsky.social
VG skriver at Trump hinter om dødsstraff for å gjengi hva konstitusjonen sier. Dette er vel litt mer enn å hinte.

(Skjermbilde fra The Guardian).

www.vg.no/nyheter/i/zO...
Skjermbilde fra The Guardian om Trumps ønsker om å drepe veteraner og demokrater som forsvarer konstitusjonen: ‘In a third post, he added: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also reposted a statement that said: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”’
November 20, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
affectscience.bsky.social
Affective science has lost an extraordinary member of our community: Dr. Paul Ekman, who passed peacefully at home at the age of 91 on Monday. Dr. Ekman's pioneering cross-cultural research on the interpretation of facial expressions in emotional terms...(1)
November 20, 2025 at 12:20 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
adamserwer.bsky.social
Editors have a really hard job, and the good ones can make something unreadable readable, and the great ones can make something unreadable into something good. But they're basically invisible, until someone tries to write without one.
November 17, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
devezer.bsky.social
circular thinking about science never ceases to surprise me. we keep devising some description of how ideal science should behave that's conditioned on some science that we have already convinced ourselves to be ideal, and then use that description to show why other sciences are less than.
November 15, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
hagenblix.bsky.social
Language models are models of a corpus, not cognition
hagenblix.bsky.social Hagen Blix @hagenblix.bsky.social · 17d
I do, of course, have a paragraph from "Why We Fear AI" for this
An LLM is an abstraction over the status quo (or rather, the text of the status quo) that has, at its core, no other aim than producing more text that is just like the text already in existence. One result is that the dominant ideas, the dominant textual patterns of our time, are recast as “intelligence” per se. We might call the complex mass of concepts and ideas, the channels into which ideas flow often and easily, or the boundaries of what is reasonable to debate in so-called “polite society”—the dominant ideology of an age. An age’s dominant ideology tends to presuppose that the power of that age is natural; the hallmark of ideology, in this sense, is that it is easy to recognize only when it’s past its time. We may no longer think that an almighty god appointed a king to rule us, that women are naturally unfit to vote, or that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is immoral. But at various times, to think otherwise (to think of replacing the monarchy with a republic, to affirm that women are people, or being in favor of sexual or gay liberation) was the far more difficult, even dangerous thought—if not to have, then at the very least to put in writing. Ideology, of course, is never complete, other thoughts are always possible. But ideology is easy to think, it’s what our thoughts are already marinated in. And hence, ideology will be dominant in the textual patterns of an age. Seen in this light, what is called “intelligence” in a language model, is really that—ideology as a thing that can pretend to be a person.
November 15, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
amstray.bsky.social
Her kan vi også bidra. Vi kan eksportere Helseplattformen til Russland, for eksempel?
maksbitter.bsky.social Max Bitter @maksbitter.bsky.social · 15d
Hvorfor skal hybridkrig kun føres den ene vej? Vi kunne jo eksportere både Aula og andre offentlige IT systemer til Rusland for at teste, hvor den røde linje går.
November 13, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
drlutzboehm.bsky.social
You are a Post-Padawan now!
November 5, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
conjugateprior.org
The secret to not worrying about the ever increasing volume of research papers is the ability to evaluate a methods section for obvious horseshit. Turns out, not reading those papers frees up a lot of time that you can spend worrying about the appalling research waste.
November 12, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
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 Tomas Formo Langkaas
rmcelreath.bsky.social
yes please and thank you
November 12, 2025 at 10:40 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
autismcrisis.bsky.social
"preliminary evidence" that "ABA therapy may be associated with increased odds of mental health hospitalizations and more frequent hospital stays among autistic youth" journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... "future inquiry into the safety of ABA and who may or may not be harmed by it is essential..."
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
November 11, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
cameronpat.bsky.social
g-computation? g-estimation? g-formula? g-arbage names!
November 8, 2025 at 1:49 PM