2 Psychological preparation ✎ Very rough draft

2.1 Be willing to look

“A few outsiders and weirdos saw the giant lie at the heart of the economy by doing something the others never thought to do: They looked.”
Be willing to consider that fraud-like behavior occurs

2.2 Do the numbers matter

As a premise for checking

2.3 Not rewarding incoherence

Not rewarding motte and baileys / evaluating articles based on their strongest claims
Authors should not be rewarded for publishing a paper saying “1+1=3” as long as they have a footnote saying “jk lmao”; the footnote doesn’t insulate you from critique, especially if it’s being cited for the claim and not the footnote

2.4 Think stupider

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one

2.5 Repeated and overlooked information

Trustworthiness assessment relies on information that is repeated or overlooked

2.6 Boring, complicated, and consequential

The worst trustworthiness issues occur at the intersection of what is boring, complicated, and consequential

2.7 Is it just me?

Dealing with uncertainty about whether an issue is real

2.8 Avoiding playing detective

The burden of proof is on the original authors to substantiate their claims; trustworthiness assessment only has to explain the issue, not account for it
You don’t have to unfuck it

2.9 Who cares about intent

Negligence < recklessness < intent
That’s not useful but it’s also usually not your role. Trustworthiness assessment of research is a separate (although sometimes prior-) step from research integrity assessments done e.g., by universities that determine guilt etc.
Trustworthiness assessment is analogous to forensic accounting or forensic lab work; not the courts that then determine whether fraud occurred or not

2.10 Untrustworthiness as an individual differences factor

Emphasis on avoiding witch hunts risks ignoring sensible implications of seeing untrustworthy research as a human factors problem that are nested in individuals, research groups, practices, etc.
Systematic patterns matter

# Psychological preparation <span class="badge badge-draft1">✎ Very rough draft</span>

```{r}
#| include: false
if(file.exists("../_setup.R")){source("../_setup.R")}
```

## Be willing to look

- "A few outsiders and weirdos saw the giant lie at the heart of the economy by doing something the others never thought to do: They looked."
- Be willing to consider that fraud-like behavior occurs

## Do the numbers matter

- As a premise for checking

## Not rewarding incoherence

- Not rewarding motte and baileys / evaluating articles based on their strongest claims
- Authors should not be rewarded for publishing a paper saying "1+1=3" as long as they have a footnote saying "jk lmao"; the footnote doesn't insulate you from critique, especially if it's being cited for the claim and not the footnote

## Think stupider

- Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one

## Repeated and overlooked information

- Trustworthiness assessment relies on information that is repeated or overlooked

## Boring, complicated, and consequential

- The worst trustworthiness issues occur at the intersection of what is boring, complicated, and consequential

## Is it just me?

- Dealing with uncertainty about whether an issue is real

## Avoiding playing detective

- The burden of proof is on the original authors to substantiate their claims; trustworthiness assessment only has to explain the issue, not account for it
- You don't have to unfuck it

## Who cares about intent

- Negligence < recklessness < intent
- That's not useful but it's also usually not your role. Trustworthiness assessment of research is a separate (although sometimes prior-) step from research integrity assessments done e.g., by universities that determine guilt etc.
- Trustworthiness assessment is analogous to forensic accounting or forensic lab work; not the courts that then determine whether fraud occurred or not

## Untrustworthiness as an individual differences factor

- Emphasis on avoiding witch hunts risks ignoring sensible implications of seeing untrustworthy research as a human factors problem that are nested in individuals, research groups, practices, etc.
- Systematic patterns matter