tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2166457665608842386.post8784398721567631978..comments2023-05-22T02:19:35.179-05:00Comments on Daniel Simons: Skepticism about subliminal primingDaniel J. Simonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02968898312917472467noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2166457665608842386.post-10032405462323830882013-03-03T12:32:36.598-06:002013-03-03T12:32:36.598-06:00I've followed some of the related lines of res...I've followed some of the related lines of research for a long time and I remember it being a difficult but successful road to demonstrate marginal perception originally, the very idea that we detect meaningful patterns that we are not even remotely aware of detecting. Having also established in various ways that perception is not just direct apprehension of the world but involves an elaborate chain of processing of some sort, subject to various influences, the idea of subliminal priming seems to have naturally become more and more taken for granted. I have a lot of respect for John Bargh's work though I think the framing of some of the questions can indeed be done differently. I also think it is very helpful here that you point out that there is an important distinction to be made between our demonstrated inability to explain our actions accurately and attributing them to specific implicit reasons. <br /><br />I think you make it more clear that we end up taking a lot for granted in our tacit acceptance of the specific effects of implicit stimuli. Certainly it makes sense to continue to dig more into the actual process of perception and the staging of action involved and I think setting a higher bar on what constitutes truly implicit reasons for behavior makes good sense as well. Thanks for clarifying this issue in a useful way. Thanks for this very helpful post.Todd I. Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231844857877577527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2166457665608842386.post-63022816877234908252013-03-02T02:59:50.026-06:002013-03-02T02:59:50.026-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roger G-Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594440701279968693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2166457665608842386.post-60527261213318145162013-03-01T19:06:57.737-06:002013-03-01T19:06:57.737-06:00Thanks Leigh. Yes, I've corresponded with Uri ...Thanks Leigh. Yes, I've corresponded with Uri about his arguments, and I largely agree that if the goal of a replication is to use .05 as a decision criterion, it's essential to have much greater power than the original study (that's the crux of what his analysis shows). I will be posting more on replications, hypothesis testing, and the use of NHST in replications soon (in short, I think using p-values to determine replication "success" and "failure" isn't the best way to go in general. More broadly, I'm not convinced it does much good to talk about replication successes and failures in general. I'd rather focus on estimating effect size and, when necessary, pointing out when a replication study shows a substantially different effect size. THe goal should be to understand the true effect in the world rather than to reject null hypotheses. Stay tuned.Daniel J. Simonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02968898312917472467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2166457665608842386.post-70575189477830002052013-03-01T17:42:17.413-06:002013-03-01T17:42:17.413-06:00Very interesting and even-handed explanation of th...Very interesting and even-handed explanation of this debate.<br /><br />On the replication point, you may be interested in Uri Simonsohn's new work on the statistical criteria that should be applied to replications (it doesn't work to simply apply the same p<0.05 standard as we apply to new results, for various reasons). He presented this at SPSP in January but I don't know of a version online yet.Leigh Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16150868700502562500noreply@blogger.com