Neil Lewis, Jr.

@NeilLewisJr
1.6K Followers
290 Following
135 Posts
Assistant Prof at Cornell University & Weill Cornell Medicine researching the equity implications of social interventions and policies (he/him)
Websiteneillewisjr.com
Last was a great discussion with @NeilLewisJr on what counts as good #science on the Stanford #Psychology Podcast. Psychology, and science more broadly, isn't immune to the biases and contextual blind spots that plague all of society, and Lewis methodically picks apart the problems that this poses to science and offers some solutions. Highly recommend https://podcasts.google.com/u/1/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8xODAxNDM2LnJzcw/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC0xMzEzNDE1Ng?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiYvP7Tger_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQLA (11/11) #bias
Stanford Psychology Podcast - 103 - Neil Lewis, Jr.: What Counts As Good Science?

Joseph chats with Neil Lewis, Jr., Assistant Professor of Communication and Social Behavior at Cornell University, and Assistant Professor of Communication Research in Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine. Neil also co-directs Cornell’s Action Research Collaborative, an institutional hub that brings together researchers, practitioners, community members, and policymakers to collaborate on projects and initiatives to address pressing equity issues in society. Neil’s research examines how people’s social contexts and identities influence how they make sense of the world around them, and the implications of those meaning-making processes for their motivation to pursue a variety of goals in life. In this episode Neil and I chat about his recent publication “What Counts as Good Science? How the Battle for Methodological Legitimacy Affects Public Psychology”. We explore the history behind the different methods used in basic and applied science, how the methods influence perceptions of legitimacy, and what lessons we can draw to address the current crisis of confidence in psychology. Links: Lewis Jr, N. A. (2021). What counts as good science? How the battle for methodological legitimacy affects public psychology. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1323. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000870 Neil's website https://neillewisjr.com/ Joseph’s Twitter @outa_joseph Podcast Twitter @StanfordPsyPod Let us know what you thought of this episode, or of the podcast! :) [email protected]

Google Podcasts
Antarctic: Sea-Ice Concentration/Extent/Thickness

Near real-time visualizations [Arctic Climate Seasonality and Variability] [Arctic Sea-Ice Extent and Concentration] [Arctic Sea-Ice Volume and Thickness] [Arctic Temperatures] [Antarctic Sea-Ice E…

Zachary Labe
[109] Data Falsificada (Part 1): "Clusterfake" - Data Colada

This is the introduction to a four-part series of posts detailing evidence of fraud in four academic papers co-authored by Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino. In 2021, we and a team of anonymous researchers examined a number of studies co-authored by Gino, because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data. We discovered evidence...

Data Colada
Let's not politicize the smoke choking most of the Northeast by talking about the root cause

New study finds “articles that develop and present a new method tend to be more disruptive.” https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231168074

Reminds me of Greenwald (2012): “An analysis of the recent history of Nobel Prizes in science unexpectedly revealed that these awards were given much more often for creation of methods and for method-based discoveries than for developments of new theory”: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611434210

#Science
#Theory

Within tech, there's a script of (especially) men seeking fame from hyping a system to gain resources/power, then warning people about its dangers once they face criticism over the dangers.

Back in (checks) 2019, I called this the "evilbrag":

When a powerful man makes a hairshirt apology in a national magazine, to manage reputational risks and also acquire even more resources, even though they helped create the problem in the first place.

It's like a humblebrag for the harms you caused

This isn’t about credit, this is about the fact that there was a moment to act together, when the power these Men of AI wield could have been used in solidarity with a movement that was gaining ground to stop the worst of AI. They didn’t use their power that way. And here we are.

I'm not arguing w the fact that AI poses risks. I AM ceaselessly annoyed by the pattern

This is not new or novel. It was women -
@timnitGebru, @mmitchell_ai, me, et al - who rang the AI alarm years ago & were retaliated against, pushed out for doing so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html

‘The Godfather of AI’ Quits Google and Warns of Danger Ahead

For half a century, Geoffrey Hinton nurtured the technology at the heart of chatbots like ChatGPT. Now he worries it will cause serious harm.

The New York Times

I wrote this 5 months ago.

It’s still relevant now.

https://mastodon.social/@atomicpoet/109389694208897513

Mastodon is a case study for why software and protocols built to help one marginalized community may end up alienating another marginalized community.

This is why intersectional examination of prejudice is so important.