lewin

Saw this on Twitter this morning:
 
-------------------------------- Dominic Packer ‏@PackerLab Interesting dissociation in words used in research statements by highest vs lowest-ranked applicants to grad program. http://db.tt/SuXW7yuE
---------------------------------
 
The link goes to a picture of two word clouds - one with the most common words used by his top 8 applicants, the other with the most common words used by his bottom 8 applicants.  Actually, it looks like there is some overlap, but the best applicants more frequently used words like "moral", "cognition", "processes", and "group".   Here's the blurb on his lab page about what he does (I wasn't terribly familiar with his work): "Our lab investigates the mental processes that allow for collective life, with a particular interest how they facilitate or inhibit social change. We conduct experiments to better understand the cognitive and neural processes that give rise to conformity and dissent, prejudice, and moral judgment."
So, the successful applicants were more likely than the unsuccessful applicants to use specific words that related to his research interests.  No big shock, but it's interesting to see "behind the curtain," as it were.

Okay, it took some wrangling, but here it is:
 
This is missing the note at the end that indicates that the rankings are Packer's own.

What the heck does her being unmarried or younger than you have to do with it?

What the heck does her being unmarried or younger than you have to do with it?

I applied to Harvard (a few years ago) and have two letters from them: The first in March saying they were unable to offer me admission. The second in July saying that there had been a "security breech" of their admissions database and my personal data may have been compromised.

I applied to Harvard and all I got was a lousy year of free credit monitoring services.

What the heck does her being unmarried or younger than you have to do with it?

What the heck does her being unmarried or younger than you have to do with it?

I'm going and I'm giving a talk. Come see me, my real name is David Funder.




But seriously, SPSP is fun. More than the talks, I like getting away with my grad school friends for a few days.

I applied to Harvard (a few years ago) and have two letters from them: The first in March saying they were unable to offer me admission. The second in July saying that there had been a "security breech" of their admissions database and my personal data may have been compromised.

I applied to Harvard and all I got was a lousy year of free credit monitoring services.

I applied to Harvard (a few years ago) and have two letters from them: The first in March saying they were unable to offer me admission. The second in July saying that there had been a "security breech" of their admissions database and my personal data may have been compromised.

I applied to Harvard and all I got was a lousy year of free credit monitoring services.

I applied to Harvard (a few years ago) and have two letters from them: The first in March saying they were unable to offer me admission. The second in July saying that there had been a "security breech" of their admissions database and my personal data may have been compromised.

I applied to Harvard and all I got was a lousy year of free credit monitoring services.

Perhaps we could stop inundating the thread with these PM requests? Another idea, instead of asking someone to PM you info, PM them and ask them for the info.

Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken is a classic but it's dense as crap. Almost anything you need to do, it's in there if you can figure it out.
http://www.amazon.com/Multiple-Regression-Correlation-Analysis-Behavioral/dp/0805822232

Social psychologists loooooove the study of processes. "Mediation" is the magic word that gets you into JPSP.

Social psychologists loooooove the study of processes. "Mediation" is the magic word that gets you into JPSP.

Hello!
Your power analysis seems correct (from what I can tell), however, I would be concerned about one of your a priori assumptions: the effect size. If you have no clue as to what your effect size would be for an interaction (i.e., no prior research) I would recommend a small effect size. Interactions are known for their small effect sizes. With that being said, it is often an understanding that they are hard to detect without a large sample size. One thing I would suggest is to create a range instead of a single point as your estimate. You could take an effect size of f = .10 and f = .25. For example, in G*power you can use the 'X-Y plot for a range of values' to create a graph. Here is a quick example I did:
 
 
 

 
Best.

There is no need to contact professors in advance.  Only do so if you have a serious question. 

I stay anonymous but I've identified myself in a few PM's and it wouldn't be difficult for somebody who knows me in real life to figure out who I am. I'm less worried about the content of my posts but more about somebody thinking that spending a lot of time on an internet forum (any forum) is a misuse of time. Also, when people google my name (how presumptuous, eh?) I want them to hit my professional website and pubs, not a random forum.

Oh dear. I don't know your field specifically but that seems like terrible advice. My advisor will send our drafts to people he knows personally (and I assume they reciprocate). This is common. Cold emailing strangers, however, seems fraught with peril. Really, that's what peer review is for. Unfortunately, you're in a dilemma because it's your advisor telling you to do this.

How can we make the best of this bad situation...?

Start with self-deprecation: I am a PhD student, this is a new area of research, I am looking for advice....

Follow with flattery: As an expert in this area, your advice or opinion on this would be very helpful... I enjoyed papers X and Y immensely....

End by tempering expectations: I know you are probably quite busy, I appreciate any attention you can give, I would completely understand if you don't have the time.


Optional inclusion: Pass the buck. My advisor and co-author asked me to send this paper to you because he/she though you would have valuable feedback...

Stronger passing the buck: Although I was hesitant to impose on your time, my advisor asked me to send this to you because....
(I'd personally go with buck passing option #1)

Pro tip: Academic psychologists don't like it when you use "science" and "psychology" in juxtaposition because psychology is a science (as practised in most universities). Arcadian has it right: stick with "natural sciences" or "physical sciences".

Found this in polisci.

^^Eigen, in your last two posts you've expressed my viewpoint much better than I can myself. Much obliged!

Fixed that for you. If other people prefer the other TA because of its location then it should be easy to switch without using children as the reason. But now you're equivocating. Your original post said: "...because I am a single mom of two elementary-school aged kids, I preferred to stay close to the university." It's unreasonable to expect someone else to travel if the sole reason is that you have kids and don't want to travel yourself.

And nobody was suggesting you shouldn't decline the TA if that choice works better for you. (I'm glad you're getting the RA's instead!) The option to decline a TA should be open to anyone regardless of reason. But if you're arguing that you deserve a local TA (which unarguably means that somebody else needs to take the far one) because of children, I don't accept that reason.

1. Sorry, if I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to say your advisor shouldn't get involved, just that at my institution they typically don't.

2. "I think I should be treated differently because I have kids." We can agree to disagree

In response to point B, I might suggest that your statement vis-à-vis suggesting that maybe it is irresponsible to have children in graduate school might easily be accompanied by an ancillary statement: "You are not a serious student if you do not sacrifice your personal relationships to your work." Should we admonish people not to have kids in graduate school, but cater to their relationships with adults? Obviously, my answer is: of course not! Let's not get bogged down in creating categories of who *always* deserves what and when.

The point here is to be humane about all of this. It is more humane to enable a single mother to be there for her kids instead of imposing a possibly (and for a graduate student *probably*) crippling financial and life burden of additional childcare and parental absence. It is likewise more humane to schedule a married couple inasmuch as it is possible so that they can see each other and maintain a healthy relationship. It is equally humane to attempt to ensure that single students do not automatically receive the short end of the stick in all situations and at all times.

I am not suggesting -- and I don't think that Wildviolet is either -- that there should be an institutional imperative to screw over people without kids. There is *absolutely nothing wrong* with going to your program administrator and advocating for your needs and desires *whatsoever your situation*. I *always* did this and was able to make successful arguments to my administrator for why I should TA for a certain class and how doing so would be beneficial to my career in academia. This kind of self-advocacy is an important aspect of learning to be a successful academic. No one here is advocating for "arbitrary top-down judgments" dictated by some anonymous "The Man" who is out to screw over people without kids. Why *shouldn't* you be able to advocate for what is best for you and your family? Why shouldn't this be taken into account? Indeed, your irritation and inconvenience *should* gave way to someone else's pressing need. My irritation and inconvenience ought to give way to *your* pressing need. We are *not* cogs in a machine and we *do* have the ability to make cognitive decisions outside of an abstract rubric that strips us of our humanity.

Suggesting that all of this should be reduced strictly to an atomization of personal and highly contingent momentary decisions as opposed to being humanely considered within the systems themselves is an inadequate solution -- it actually doesn't deal with the unforeseeable situation that you, or me, or anyone else might find ourselves in at some point where we really *do* need that entire semester of time on "light duty" because of a family (or personal, etc.) crisis. Should we really find ourselves forced out of our chosen career path because the members of our institutions are forcibly rendered blind to human need out of some notion of professional "fairness"? No one here has said "for the rest of my Ph.D. please exempt me from anything." No one here has advocated for a strict rule that completely screws over the single or the childless.

We can do better than creating abstract and dehumanizing policies that do not allow us to advocate for what we need and to have those needs considered! If am I inconvenienced for a semester so that you can save your marriage -- for God's sake, let us hope that I can manage to put up with this in good humor rather than resenting the fact that this cut into my ability to coordinate with my World of Warcraft group!