Statistical Rethinking 2026 is done: 20 new lectures emphasizing logical and critical statistical workflow, from basics of probability theory to causal inference to reliable computation to sensitivity. It's all free, made just for you. Lecture list and links: github.com/rmcelreath/s...
Finally finished up a blog post on estimating Bradley–Terry models using brms.
www.m-flynn.com/posts/2025-1...
We propose an ecolinguistic, holistic framework that disentangles method from epistemology and repositions language as emerging within dynamic, relational systems that include human and more-than-human actors.
At the same time, constructivist and decolonial turns, while critically valuable, often remain entangled in colonial, extractivist, capitalist, hegemonic, and anthropocentric logics.
Structuralism, we contend, is not inherently anti-social or anti-agentive but grounded in relationality; its caricature has contributed to theoretical fragmentation and epistemic silos.
🎉 New position paper out with @jess-hampton.bsky.social
🌱 Beyond the horizon: A more-than-human and holistic
approach to language 🌱
Out now in *Language & Ecology*
www.ecolinguistics-association.org/_files/ugd/a...
I ported the notes to Quarto and now all the old links are broken 😅. Here the new link to the chapter on Bayesian models of cognition: fusaroli.github.io/AdvancedCogn...
Working now on 3 chapters on models of categorization (exemplar, prototype, rule-based)
Thanks! And thank you for the very insightful and entertaining laughter talk :)
Also thank you to those who are finding my teaching materials helpful! I am working on new chapters to my quant methods textbook (stefanocoretta.github.io/qdal/) so watch that space and you can find my other workshops materials here: stefanocoretta.github.io/teaching.htm...
Had a blast at #BAAP2026! [That also involved ripping my jeans while performing ballet at the bar (the drinks bar) for some of the conference dinner attendees who surely didn't ask for it] Jokes apart, amazing research being done and was happy to see Bayesian stuff!
All graphs are comparisons, and the relevance of this principle to practical advice for producing better graphs
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/04/12/a...
Asking for a colleague:
First language English speakers survey on phonosymbolism. Please share:
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...
Link to the paper, Phonetic features in the interactional management of laughter:
www.jbe-platform.com/content/jour...
I did something similar for modelling one effect for one language only (since only that language had data for that effect).
I was a bit surprised that the paper has no mention of more recent positions within typological linguistics (like Haspelmath's) and more recent work by Ambridge. Also, I wish there was more of a review of storage/computation separation (in some approaches, it doesn't make sense to separate them).
Statement on Schmukle et al. (2007) by Stefan C. Schmukle The original main finding was that the implicit gender self-concept measured with the IAT significantly correlated with second-digit/fourth digit (2D:4D) ratios for men (r = .36, p = .02) but not for women. We used two different versions of a gender IAT in this study (one with pictures and one with words as gender-specific stimuli; r = .46), and we had two different 2D:4D measures (the first measure was based on directly measuring the finger lengths using a caliper, and the second was based on measuring the scans of the hands; r = .83). The correlation between IAT and 2D:4D was, however, significant only for the combination of picture IAT and 2D:4D scan measure but insignificant for other combinations of IAT and 2D:4D measures. When I was writing the manuscript, I thought that the pattern of results made sense because (a) the research suggested that for an IAT, pictures were better suited as stimuli than words and because (b) I assumed that the scan measures should lead to better results for psychometric reasons (because measurements were averaged across two raters). Accordingly, I reported only the results for the combination of picture IAT and 2D:4D scan measure in the article (for all results, see the long version of the loss-of-confidence statement at https://osf.io/bv48h/). In the meantime, I have lost confidence in this finding, and I now think that the positive association between the gender IAT and 2D:4D is very likely a false-positive result because I should have corrected the p value for multiple testing.
Fun fact: My boss, Stefan Schmukle, actually published a study on implicit gender self-concept (measured with the IAT) and 2D:4D ratios. And it's included in the loss-of-confidence project, because (surprise) he no longer believes in it.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
Petyt’s meaning is definitely the original meaning of koiné (in the context of Greek). But also the meaning of dialect was “speech of the a specific area” with no reference to social nor genealogical aspect so… 🤷♂️ 🤣
If research has no applied end-goal, it still matters. (Note that “no applied end-goal” doesn’t mean “no potential application”. I believe that all research has potential for application, that’s not the point I am making).
Oh yes, Lakatos is liked in quant circles nowadays.
Indeed! Like a positionality statement in qual research (although different researchers mean different things with positionality, that’s why I came up with the concept/term “researcher’s orientation”.
Indeed! That’s what pushed me to think more about my own “orientation” (work in progress): stefanocoretta.github.io/orientation....
Sounds great! I look forward to see it. I am also planning to write a piece with @jess-hampton.bsky.social on the qual/quant divide that is related to that discourse.
There’s a tendency of equating constructivism with qual methods and quant methods with positivism. It’s a reductionist view.
I see a lot of ritualistic thinking rather than proper reflexive engagement with philosophical stance. (There are exceptions of course, but they are exceptions.)
We surely need more precise definitions of Open Research, especially when criticising "Open Research".
Also, Open Research is a dynamic and active area of (meta)research and it encompasses many different aspects of research so we should avoid reductive statements (like "sharing data will not solve the crisis" as if Open Research is just about sharing data).
Some believe that others believe that Open Research is the ultimate *cure* to the research crises. But no: in most minds, Open Research is a *response* to the research crises, not necessarily a panacea.
Ah, good point! :) it’s the second (I say “in linguistics” because I don’t want to generalise to disciplines I’m not familiar with)
As researchers, we all have a duty of being more reflexive and understand the philosophy behind research rather than just fuel camp wars (see the constructivists critique of quant methods and the realists critique of qual methods).
