🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

New Talk: Scientific Stories And Why They Matter This is a talk I gave at Nick Ballou (is mostly on a Tw*tter hiatus) and Oliver Withington's recent Open Science event at Queen Mary. It's about telling the stories of scientists' lives, about whose stories get told, and why it's so important. youtube.com/watch?v=RLuZ4C…

One for my academic friends - have you seen any mention of 'brainrot' in screen-time-adjacent literature? A ppt mentioned it in a qual interview and I'm interested in whether this has been covered before from an objective standpoint.

Nick gave a great talk on generative AI and scientific fraud earlier this year, and the slides are now online. I found it really eye-opening and it gave me a lot to think about. Highly recommend checking it out!

This week, I am at #CHI2024 to present our latest paper. “Not All the Same: Understanding and Informing Similarity Estimation in Tile-Based Video Games” arxiv.org/abs/2402.18728. Co-authors: @CIGbalance, Laurissa Tokarchuk, Sam Snodgrass and Christian Guckelsberger.

A student of ours is looking for help collecting data and they’re looking for participants who play Minecraft. Please participate if you: ☑️Have 12 minutes for a survey ☑️Play Minecraft on PC ☑️Love science ☑️Are over 18 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 oii.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bk…

🎮 🕹️ Globally we spend at least half a trillion hours a year gaming. Oxford Internet Institute researcher Nick Ballou (is mostly on a Tw*tter hiatus) shares his research on how gaming can be good for you in a new BBC Ideas💡 x OxfordSocialSciences film - watch now: youtu.be/MuF4LH-RvwE

My blog post critical of this re-analysis is up: matthewbjane.com/blog-posts/blo… The re-analysis conducted by Rausch & Haidt does not follow a principled statistical approach. I re-do their re-analysis with appropriate statistical methods

Here is my response to Haidt’s response to me matthewbjane.com/blog-posts/blo…. R&H’s re-analysis was a meta-analysis. If there are errors in the data as they claim (this very well may be true), then it begs the question why conduct the re-analysis in the first place?

I don't want to get my hopes up about this lawsuit, but I can think of few other undertakings which have greater potential to improve the future of science.