Julia M. Rohrer

@dingdingpeng.the100.ci

Personality psych & causal inference @UniLeipzig. I like all things science, beer, & puns. Even better when combined! Part of http://the100.ci, http://openscience-leipzig.org

Don't posit a theory that is only interesting because it implies X causes variation in Y, test for a statistical relationship between X and Y, but then say you are not interpreting causally. Of course you are interpreting it causally. That was the whole point of what you just did.

Something I learnt recently: Amazon stores all the highlights you make in Kindle here read.amazon.com/notebook which you can copy into an LLM to turn into structured notes. That way I can spend more time doing something I like (reading) and less time on something I don’t (making notes)

“‘Out of curiosity,’ says the patient, hoping to delay the injection, ‘what was the odds ratio for those without the genetic variant?’ The doctor pauses, puts down the needle, and turns back to the study. ‘The odds ratio for those without the genetic variant was also 4.’”

Noah Greifer@noahgreifer.bsky.social · 13h ago

Knowing that I said something profound enough to be in your blog post is an honor :) My own irreverent take on odds ratios: ngreifer.github.io/blog/an-odds...

Also, a reminder that if you notice any factual errors I make in my published work, please tell me - I'll pay you a reward! I've found most of them myself so far, so I just donate extra instead. But I can't tell if this is because others haven't noticed them or are unwilling to tell me - please do!

About - Scientific Discovery

Tracing the steps towards scientific progress. Click to read Scientific Discovery, by Saloni Dattani, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

scientificdiscovery.dev

To help relieve work stress, don't answer emails on the weekend. Also on weekdays after 5 PM turn off your email. On Mondays, don't log into your email until after noon. Before logging in on Tuesday burn your computer and erase your identity. By Wednesday morning gather supplies and escape into the

I have read this Response to my Comment and have written a Rejoinder, showing three things: 1. The multiverse is many correlated tests. 2. The randomization inference is wrong. 3. The trichotomous moderator reaffirms my point. I also enumerate 7 misleading claims, now in print in the APSR.

A Rejoinder to ‘Still Instrumentally Inclusive’ (Turnbull-Dugarte & López Ortega)
Daniel de KadtCornell University, Department of Governmentdekadt@cornell.edu
2026-08-01
Abstract Turnbull-Dugarte and López Ortega’s “Still Instrumentally Inclusive” (the Response) answers my replication (the Comment) of their 2024 American Political Science Review paper (the Article) with, among other things, a multiverse of 2,970 analyses based on eighteen different weighting schemes, randomization inference, and a trichotomous moderator. As I show in this rejoinder, each is undermined by bona fide errors in their code, their writing, and their interpretation. First, the multiverse is just many correlated variants of the same test. This is in large part due to the weighting schemes which suffer multiple problems (some due to code errors, some intrinsic), and are largely correlated variations on one weighting scheme. Second, due to code errors the randomization inference compares a weighted statistic against an unweighted null and, in the two heterogeneity tests, permutes the interaction column rather than treatment assignment column. Every permutation p-value the Response reports is therefore computed against the wrong reference distribution; when they are recomputed correctly, two of the five it reports as significant are no longer so, and they are the two the Response emphasizes. Third, the trichotomous moderator is erroneously described as terciles, but it is in fact based on non-tercile cutpoints. The key subgroup effect reported in the Response thus rests on comparing just thirty high-weight control respondents against thirty-one high-weight treated respondents, and ends up reaffirming my original point that the heterogeneity in study 2 is with respect to weights, and not immigration sentiment as their theory predicts. I close by documenting seven claims in the Response that are untrue or misleading.
Cambridge University Press Political Science & IR@cambup-polsci.cambridge.org · last wk.

#OpenAccess from @apsrjournal.bsky.social - Still Instrumentally Inclusive - https://cup.org/4bhrhsp "Do individuals in Western democracies shift their views on LGBT+ inclusion when exposed to opposition from Muslim out-groups?" - @turnbulldugarte.com & @bertous.bsky.social #FirstView

Banner with the hashtag #OpenAccess on a green background and the text "American Political Science Review" on a blue background below.