Suppr超能文献

“这种行为让我们觉得很理想”:对 Huisman(2022)的评估和预期。

"This behavior strikes us as ideal": assessment and anticipations of Huisman (2022).

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1001, NK, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Department of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2024 Feb;31(1):242-248. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x. Epub 2023 Aug 1.

Abstract

Huisman (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-10. 2022) argued that a valid measure of evidence should indicate more support in favor of a true alternative hypothesis when sample size is large than when it is small. Bayes factors may violate this pattern and hence Huisman concluded that Bayes factors are invalid as a measure of evidence. In this brief comment we call attention to the following: (1) Huisman's purported anomaly is in fact dictated by probability theory; (2) Huisman's anomaly has been discussed and explained in the statistical literature since 1939; the anomaly was also highlighted in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review article by Rouder et al. (2009), who interpreted the anomaly as "ideal": an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of Huisman. We conclude that when intuition clashes with probability theory, chances are that it is intuition that needs schooling.

摘要

胡斯曼(Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2022)认为,当样本量较大时,有效的证据衡量标准应该比样本量较小时更支持真实的替代假设。贝叶斯因子可能违反这种模式,因此胡斯曼得出结论,贝叶斯因子作为证据衡量标准是无效的。在这个简短的评论中,我们提请注意以下几点:(1)胡斯曼所谓的异常实际上是由概率论决定的;(2)自 1939 年以来,统计文献中一直在讨论和解释胡斯曼的异常;这种异常也在 Rouder 等人(2009)的《心理学期刊与评论》一文中得到了强调,他们将这种异常解释为“理想”:这一解释与胡斯曼的解释截然相反。我们的结论是,当直觉与概率论发生冲突时,很可能是需要接受概率论的教育。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/5a51e2a721b2/13423_2023_2299_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验