Sign in

Ruben C. Arslan

@ruben.the100.ci
4.7K followers 808 following 1.8K posts

Bayescurious evidence enthusiast at the100.ci Topics: evolution, ovulation, mutation, intelligence, personality, sexuality, R, open science & source tools. rubenarslan.github.io

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Matt Parkes @mattyjparkes.bsky.social · 11h
Increasingly feels like 60% of my time is 'logging into systems', and 60% of my inbox is made up of verification codes from logging into systems.
0215
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 29/09/2026
Hayes has been banging this drum about idionomic analyses for 6+ years, with folk like @jamiecummins.bsky.social pointing out that its reinventing-the-wheel-but-worse for just as long. My experience is that the ACT community is insufficiently interested and aware of existing methods+stats work.
12311
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 28/09/2026
Germany has cancelled funding for the German Cochrane Foundation. Bad news all around. Cochrane’s benefit to cost ratio is huge. @cochrane.org www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/wark...
sueddeutsche.de
Bund streicht renommierter Cochrane-Stiftung die Förderung
Die Cochrane-Stiftung, die seit Jahren die Nutzen medizinischer Therapien untersucht, soll künftig nicht mehr staatlich gefördert werden.
32813
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Saloni @scientificdiscovery.dev · 25/09/2026
Happy Friday! Iʼve created a game for you to play! Will AI cure all diseases in 10 years? Inspired by bottlenecks discourse, I created a game to help build your intuitions. Play it here: game.clinicaltrialsabundance.blog Naturally, it’s bottle-themed with bubbles and there are leaderboards too.
33810
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Solomon @solomonrmissouri.com · 24/09/2026
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
913437925
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
moin syed @syeducation.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
The paper was led by the excellent doctoral student Abby Person, who has a hilariously fake-sounding name when using her first and middle initials with her last name.
Abby Person as A.I. Person
2625
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
moin syed @syeducation.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
The findings in one figure: nearly every article included all three types of generalizability claims.
100% of studies included claims related to statistical-probabilistic and analytic generalizability and that 85% related to transferability. A little more than half of studies explicitly described their epistemological framework. However, very few studies said that generalizability was not a goal of the study or noted a lack of generalizability as a limitation of the study.
1142
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
moin syed @syeducation.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
New paper! Despite qualitative researchers claiming that generalizability is not a goal, their published work does indeed contain generalizable claims. We document this and provide recommendations for how all researchers can better calibrate their generalizability claims. doi.org/10.1177/2515...
article header for, "Qualitative Researchers Can and Do Generalize: Generalizability Claims in Qualitative Psychological Research". Metascience!
619255
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Tom Rodebaugh @drrodebaugh.bsky.social · 18/09/2026
New from my lab! So, you've heard that habituation during exposure doesn't predict overall treatment change. Emotional processing theory must be wrong and we need a new theory. But... what if the measurement of habituation was unreliable? Free for 50 days link: authors.elsevier.com/c/1noIo39qZA...
The "always has been" theme with the first astronaut saying "Wait it's all measurement" ("Always has been")
1285
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
New preprint! 🎉 I analysed 1660 papers from 4 psychology journals and found materials sharing went from 9% of papers in 2015 to 82% in 2025, and these materials *do* get downloaded — a median of 135 times each. BUT shared code is often hard to run. doi.org/10.31234/osf... Let's walk through it 🧵
Two-panel figure. Panel a is a flow diagram tracking 1,611 empirical psychology articles from publication year (545 in 2015, 552 in 2020, 514 in 2025) to repository-link type: 785 link an OSF project, 85 link another platform, and 741 link no repository. Of those with an OSF link, download counts were retrieved for 670 and not retrieved for 115. Panel b is a line chart of the share of empirical papers linking OSF across 2015, 2020 and 2025. The overall rate, shown as a dashed black line, rises from 9% to 57% to 82%. All four journals rise steeply and end close together: Psychological Science 92%, JESP 89%, JML 83%, Cognition 76%, with Psychological Science highest throughout.Three-panel figure. Panel a: ridgeline plot of downloads per file by material type on a log scale, with the percentage never downloaded labelled for each — archive 16% of 545 files, documents 20% of 2,970, code 12% of 3,471, other 17% of 1,646, data 21% of 10,051, media 35% of 2,120, images 35% of 4,102. Most files cluster between 1 and 10 downloads, with long right tails past 100. Panel b: ridgeline plot of downloads per paper by journal, log scale, with dashed median lines; Psychological Science is highest, then JESP, JML and Cognition. Panel c: stacked bars showing, for documents, data and code separately, the share of papers by download band (0, 1–10, 11–100, more than 100) in 2015, 2020 and 2025. The share exceeding 100 downloads falls sharply over time in all three types, from roughly two-thirds in 2015 to a quarter or less in 2025, as the 1–10 band grows.Four-panel figure. Panel a: statistical languages detected among 333 papers with retrievable code — R 88%, SPSS 12%, Stata 4%, SAS 1%. Panel b: code red flags among those 333 papers — 34% hard-code an absolute path, 40% reference a missing file — above documentation among 672 OSF-linked papers — 21% have a README, 30% are documented by README, description or wiki. Panel c: among 562 Elsevier papers with no repository link, 44% (245) host at least one journal supplementary file but only 14% (77) host data, code or an archive. Panel d: composition of those 448 hosted files — documents 52%, data 21%, media 9%, other 7%, archive 6%, code 3%, images 1%. The code panels are green, the journal-supplement panels blue.Coefficient plot (download predictors)

Dot-and-whisker plot of three standardised predictors of OSF download volume, each with a 95% confidence interval. Repository size (number of files) has the largest effect at about 0.76, citations about 0.38, and altmetric attention about 0.12. All three intervals sit entirely above zero, so each predicts more downloads, with repository size roughly twice the effect of citations and six times that of attention. X-axis: standardised effect, −0.2 to 1.0.
4264111
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Kevin A. Scott, PhD @sculpturatus.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
found at ucsf
9555116
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Malte Elson @malte.the100.ci · 18/09/2026
No ground truth, no witnesses. Uh. Yeah. [Verse] Roll up on the dataset, don't standardize a thing, Raw units, mixed scales, let the big variable be king. Pick my k in advance 'cause I already know the story, Three clusters in the grant, so it's three, that's the glory. - Clusta Rhymes
3235
Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 18/09/2026
I just posted a comment on Pubpeer and a new blog post. A journalist had asked me to comment on a new menstrual cycle paper on conspicuous consumption. After a brief investigation, I found severe errors that changed the conclusions. rubenarslan.github.io/posts/2026-0...
rubenarslan.github.io
One lives only to make blunders: HIBAR: Fertility and Conspicuous Consumption
Had I Been a Reviewer.
1123
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 18/09/2026
This is very misleading. The effect size for treatment of .30 is a Cohen's d from RCTs, i.e. causal. The effect size for alliance is a Pearson's r of .30 (more like .6 expressed as d) and massively subject to confounding and reverse causation. So, this is not at all comparing like with like.
1104
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Nick Brown @steamtraen.eu · 17/09/2026
Now published online at AMPPS: Our (me and Andrew Gelman) reply to the response by Aungle et al. to our comment on the Aungle & Langer article. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... Relatedly, we really need a standard name for each stage of the comment–reply sequence!
journals.sagepub.com
This Is the Reason for External Replication: Response to Aungle et al. - Nicholas J. L. Brown, Andrew Gelman, 2026
6218
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Johannes Zimmermann @jzpsych.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
New preprint: population-representative norms for the PID-5 and its short forms (PID-5-SF, PID-5-BF, PID5BF+M), conditional on age and gender, for the German population. With @andrekerber.bsky.social, Christoph Kemper & Katharina Weweck. osf.io/preprints/ps...
1117
Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 16/09/2026
www.experimental-history.com/p/there-is-n... From the guy who brought us "The illusion of moral decline", now out: a new and exciting illusion of moral decline.
experimental-history.com
There is no epidemic of loneliness, but there is an epidemic of scurvy
OR: hey buddy, your teeth are falling out
181
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Bill Chopik @chops310.bsky.social · 14/09/2026
Hi, I'd like to apply for the lifetime achievement award. Although my chronological age would seemingly render me ineligible, my biological age? Firmly in the eligibility window. How old do I feel (subjective age)? I'm at death's door. Thank you for your consideration
3206
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 27/08/2026
Psychological Science special issue call 📣 Ever had your research denigrated bc it's "only descriptive", "what's the mechanism though?" and "but what are the theoretical implications?" Now has come your time to shine. Send your best descriptive work! www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...
Psychological Science invites submissions that advance psychological science through careful description of psychological phenomena. Psychological research often focuses on explaining and predicting phenomena before we have a sufficiently detailed understanding of them. It can be difficult to build strong theories on incomplete empirical foundations of the phenomena themselves. Careful descriptive research helps establish shared empirical reference points developed around well-characterized phenomena. As such, descriptive research contributes to psychological science both by improving our understanding of the phenomena themselves and by providing a stronger foundation for future theory-building, explanation, and prediction.

We are interested in manuscripts that:

Deepen our understanding of psychological phenomena, including what they look like, how they vary, and how they unfold;
Draw on a variety of sources of evidence and methods, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches; research conducted in naturalistic settings; intensive, longitudinal, or small-sample designs; and open or large-scale datasets; 
Provide necessary context for interpreting what is being described, including who is represented in the data, the settings and circumstances in which phenomena occur, and the broader social contexts in which they are situated; and/or
Make a substantive contribution to psychological science through the quality, depth, or significance of the description provided.
The deadline for submitting regular manuscripts is April 15, 2027. Registered Reports will also be considered. The deadline for submitting Stage 1 Registered Reports is November 15, 2026. Authors should indicate in the “Comments to Editor” box during submission that the manuscript is intended for the “Descriptive Research in Psychological Science” special issue.
7244128
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Matthew B. Jané @matthewbjane.bsky.social · 13/09/2026
I’ve been quiet on social media lately, but today I’m launching Audit Clinical Evidence (ACE), an initiative I’ve been developing over the past year. Take a look: AuditClinicalEvidence.org
auditclinicalevidence.org
ACE
Independent audits of published clinical research for statistical errors, data inconsistencies, and research integrity violations.
89132
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 13/09/2026
Separately, the author of the retracted article has written a book called "100 Ways to Future-Proof Your Brain" which she claims has sold over 100k copies. This would be remarkable given its negative reviews www.goodreads.com/book/show/23...
1151
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 13/09/2026
Article now retracted. Retraction notice focuses on data sharing, but doesn't mention - the ethics review body is the author's own company - the tech used to to collect the data by intercepting users' LLM prompts does not exist ht @grinschglsandra.bsky.social psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
psycnet.apa.org
APA PsycNet
511435
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Saloni @scientificdiscovery.dev · 11/09/2026
I'm having a similar experience, although have only received a few emails like this so far. Some are so stingy about tokens that they don't start trying to check the work unless I confirm it's eligible for a reward.
3112
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 11/09/2026
This is a wild story, but I also like the idea that if we declare bounties on the right things, some random guy who tells the AI “make me 50 usd make no mistakes” may lead to some good outcomes.
4454
Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 11/09/2026
An interesting thing is happening to me at the moment. I have a standing bug bounty policy for my first authored scientific work. That means, I've committed to pay people who report bugs in my code, up to 750€ for severe errors. Since GPT-6 Astra came out, I'm now getting several bug reports daily.
39233
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Michael Dufner @michduf.bsky.social · 08/09/2026
Finally out: our systematic review on self-knowledge and adjustment! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... Bottom line: Surprisingly little evidence that accurate self-knowledge is beneficial. But also: clear need for different kinds of studies
journals.sagepub.com
023
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Simon Columbus @simoncolumbus.bsky.social · 04/09/2026
A lot of this research is really bad. One of these effects people just *want* to be true, so researchers can get away with shoddy crosssectional analyses and handwaving.
2226
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 04/09/2026
This is such a classic, it even made it onto my slides on surrogate experiments. It’s peak internalvaliditymaxxing.
Three slides on surrogate experiments and how the thing that you manipulated may not be the thing you’re interested in.
2293
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 03/09/2026
Very few people know that this is how it all began @celestialsem.bsky.social
Sewall Wright's guinea pig path diagram, but the guinea pigs are wearing space helmets and there's a space background
27414
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Michel Nivard @michelnivard.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
We then asked: are population GWAS of personality mostly tagging family background or confounded by gene-environment correlations or population stratification? Within-family analyses suggest: largely no. Prediction within families was about 96% as large as population-level prediction.
1113
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Michel Nivard @michelnivard.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
First, the people. Ted Schwaba ( @tedmond.bsky.social) led this huge effort and somehow got us through. He’s now on paternity leave, so I get to do the thread. The project co-supervised by me and my long-time collaborator Elliot Tucker-Drob (@tuckerdrob.bsky.social.) and has dozens of co-authors
183
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Michel Nivard @michelnivard.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
🚨& 🧵 Our new Nature paper is out! Across 46 cohorts and up to 1.14M people per Big Five trait, we do GWAS and ask how robust, generalizable and consequential the genetic signals underlying personality really are. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
nature.com
614268
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
simine vazire @simine.com · 28/08/2026
Psych Science (the journal) is broader than you might think! Do you do descriptive research? Or research w/ underrepresented populations or cultural frameworks? Or research on AI/LLMs for psych? Or research testing lab findings in the real world? We have a special issue for that!
14931
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
simine vazire @simine.com · 02/09/2026
Psych Science has retracted Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002). The second author requested the retraction. Both authors agreed to it. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... So grateful to @datacolada.bsky.social for these blog posts and the work behind them: datacolada.org/138 and datacolada.org/139 1/2
journals.sagepub.com
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
426794
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Data Colada @datacolada.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
An influential paper by Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002) reported two studies with tampered data. Post 1 of 2. datacolada.org/138
datacolada.org
[138] Artificial Deadlines (Part 1): Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
A new paper in Psychological Science (.htm) reports a failure to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch’s influential article entitled, “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Contr…
723799
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Matt Darling @besttrousers.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
This was clever - students were much less likely to report their data using round numbers in the 2002 data (suggesting it was manipulated).
6895
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Matt Darling @besttrousers.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
It's funny that the non-round numbers reported are all "multiples of 5", "2" and "69".
1462
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Association for Psychological Science @psychscience.bsky.social · 19/08/2026
Psychological Science invites submissions for a special issue: “Advancing Psychological Science Using Large Language Models” #LLMs Stage 1 Registered Reports due October 15. Regular articles due March 15. Questions? Ask the Editors: @jamiecummins.bsky.social and  @ruben.the100.ci
psychologicalscience.org
Special Issue Call for Submissions: “Advancing Psychological Science Using Large Language Models”
Editors: Jamie Cummins and Ruben C. ArslanPsychological Science invites submissions for a special issue on psychological science involving large language models. We welcome theoretically and empirical...
057
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Saloni @scientificdiscovery.dev · 17/08/2026
It's finally here! I gave a TED talk in April in Vancouver, and it was released online today. You can watch it here: ted.com/talks/saloni... I've also adapted it into an article, which was published last week: worksinprogress.co/issue/future...
Me on the TED stage
611923
Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 13/08/2026
maddening. researchers shouldn't abide such policies not to disclose massive errors. pubpeer first, then the journal gets a chance to do the right thing.
The original claim that science was becoming less disruptive has appeared in more than 300 news stories worldwide.

The Belgian researchers submitted their critique to Nature in October 2023. It took the journal 32 months to accept it. While the critique was under review, Nature still published an editorial and ran a News Feature drawing on the original conclusion. During those years, the original paper was cited more than 1,000 additional times and used in at least 16 policy documents.

"Whereas the software bug was fixed by the open-source community in months, it took years for the scientific correction to be published," says Ginis. "And all this time, the journal's policies prohibited us from speaking to the press while our critique was under submission."

Other researchers in the field have suggested restricting the analysis to papers with at least 10 references and citations. When they follow this guideline, the Belgian team finds a slight, statistically significant increase in disruption. Still, this is not their conclusion.
0287
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 13/08/2026
A welcome opportunity to revive this one
Meme-style slide with a light blue gradient background, titled 'STOP CALCULATING INDEX VARIABLES' in large bold black letters at the top.

Below the title, a bulleted list in black text:

NUMBERS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE MASHED LIKE THAT
YEARS OF RATIO VARIABLES yet NO CONTROL FOR THE DENOMINATOR achieved
Wanted to account for the denominator for a laugh? We had a tool for that: It was called "CONTROL VARIABLE"
"Yes please give me ONE kilogram times years per square meter of something" – Statements dreamed up by the utterly Deranged

Below the bullets, unbulleted text reads: 'LOOK at what researchers have been demanding your Respect for all this time, with all the computers we built for them' followed by a bolded line: '(These are REAL Index Variables, done by REAL researchers)'

The bottom portion shows several mathematical formulas with red question marks scattered beneath them, implying mock outrage/confusion:

A formula for Simpson's Diversity Index: D = 1 − (Σn(n−1) / N(N−1)), followed by red '?????'
A small formula labeled CD = (#○−#□)/(#○+#□+#▲) = 1/6, next to a diagram of shapes (triangle, diamonds, squares, circles) connected by arrows radiating from a central dark diamond, followed by red '??????????????'
The Euclidean distance formula: d(p,q) = √((p₁−q₁)² + (p₂−q₂)² + ... + (pₙ−qₙ)²), followed by a long row of red question marks

At the very bottom, the phrase '"Hello I would like 🔺 apples please"' appears (with a small colorful 3D geometric/fractal icon in place of a number), followed by the closing line in bold black text: 'They have played us for absolute fools.'
27012
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
vincentholst.bsky.social @vincentholst.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Instead of a decline in the disruptiveness of scientific and technological knowledge, the data mainly show an increasing metadata quality over time: relatively fewer papers with zero references due to database errors. 7/8
The decline in disruption (including zero reference papers, left panel) mirrors the relative decrease of zero reference papers which were wrongly counted as being maximally disruptive (right panel).
14013
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
vincentholst.bsky.social @vincentholst.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
In 2023, @nature.com published 'Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time', receiving world-wide media attention. Our Matters Arising, published after a 32 month delay (more on that soon), shows that the reported decline can largely be attributed to dataset artefacts. 🧵
The average CD_5 index per year for Web of Science. The original Park et al. decline (top curve) becomes essentially flat (bottom curve) when removing papers with CD_5=1. Those papers largely correspond to dataset artefacts.
9351173
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
derek guy @dieworkwear.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
I enjoyed this. ordinaryabundance.com
ordinaryabundance.com
Ordinary Abundance
A walk through a modern apartment, through the eyes of the people for whom everything in it was new.
753423907
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Saloni @scientificdiscovery.dev · 11/08/2026
BIG NEW piece by me. A few years ago, if you asked me to summarize my entire worldview in one article, I would’ve said it was too broad and too difficult. But this year, I decided to do it.
worksinprogress.co
Every disease is a policy failure
Few people know how much medicine has progressed in their lifetimes. Fewer know how much faster it could be progressing.
1327189
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · 11/08/2026
A brave and tough call to make. It's hard to overstate how influential OSF has been on science in the past ~15 years. It's been such a staple that you'd almost forget how much cost, time, and effort it must be to keep going. Kudos to the OSF team for everything they've done.
04616
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Vishnu Sreekumar @vishnusreekumar.bsky.social · 05/08/2026
📢 ***Call for papers at Psychological Science (APS)*** Dr Roni Porat and I are editing a special issue, "From Lab to Life: Psychological Science in the Real World.” Please see the detailed call here (www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...) and send us your best work!
41923
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 08/08/2026
New blog post in which we discover the secret to immortality: accounting errors. www.the100.ci/2026/08/08/m...
the100.ci
My Immortal Time Bias
Preamble: This shortie is my attempt to come up with an example that makes the problem underlying immortal time bias as obvious as possible.  In Japan, people who reach the age of 100 are handed a co...
128031
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Sholto David @sholtodavid.bsky.social · 06/08/2026
A tool used to rephrase plagiarised text changed "final solution" to "mass killing of an ethnic group" in a chemistry paper. Now retracted thanks to a PubPeer user who spotted this. pubpeer.com/publications...
271037404
Reposted by Ruben C. Arslan
Hadley Wickham @hadley.nz · 06/08/2026
This what pivot_wider() was born for
520427