Mistakes, Updates and Other Concerns

This page was started as a general repository of mistakes I’ve made in posts, updates to things I’ve talked about in other posts, and other concerns I have about things I’ve written in the past. An explanation for why I’m doing this is in this post here and this post here. If you’ve seen an error I made in a post and want to report it to me, go ahead and send it to me here

April 2017

Post: Calling BS Read-Along Week 3: The Natural Ecology of BS
Originally Published: March 19th, 2017
Error: While taking a dig at TED, I asserted that Amy Cuddy’s “power pose” talk contained no disclaimer that the research it was based on had failed to replicate. A few weeks later I went to the page again and noticed that there was a disclaimer I hadn’t seen before. Concerned that I had missed it earlier, I decided to investigate.
Investigation results: Since the disclaimer wasn’t in bold and , I wondered if I had just gotten this wrong entirely. Then I realized the disclaimer pointed to an article from October 5th, 2016.  Apparently after one of Cuddy’s initial co-authors questioned the study (here on Oct 1st, 2016), TED added the disclaimer. The reason I screwed up is because I had actually initially made this claim about the TED webpage back when it was true (in June of 2016 ), and had not rechecked it carefully when I said it again in March of 2017.
Outcome: I updated the Calling BS post plus the older one from June “Internet Science: Some Updates“. I reminded myself that things change and that an assertion that’s true one day may be false the next.

Post: Calling BS Read-Along Week 6: Data Visualization
Originally Published:
April 9th, 2017
I wrote this up more thoroughly here, but basically I included an assertion that people find stories with graphs more credible than stories that don’t contain graphs. This was based on a study done by a lab that has recently (November 2016) been accused of bad data practices that may have led to a lot of false positive results (at best) and a few accusations of possible falsified data (at worst). 
Investigation Results:
Not much I could have done about this one, I had simply missed the accusations that had been brought forward. Even if I had seen them, I’m not sure I would have connected them to the study I was quoting, as I didn’t remember the lead authors name. I had first quoted that study back in January of 2016,  so I would not have come across the accusations then. The study itself is not in question at the moment, so none of the references for it contain any note about this.
I updated the initial post and moved the reference to the initial study to the bottom of the page. I also added a note to the January 2016 post. I decided to get the PubPeer Chrome Extension which would alert me if someone had left a comment on a paper had concerns. Interestingly, in this case there are no comments on the paper.

Post: Myriad
Date Published: Innumerable
Error: I use “it’s” when I mean “its”
Investigation: Homonyms have always been my nemesis
Outcome: I use ctrl+f to find each instance of “it’s” I’ve used before I let posts publish with the hopes that I can individually review each use.