Came across this foot note in Rausch and Haidt’s article. Unfortunately, this is exactly not what a random effects meta-analysis is. They seem to be confusing it with an equal-effect or common effect meta-analysis. Yet they state it as fact.

Seeing the list of names on buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane seriously gave me chills of joy. You people are lovely.

I just received 24 coffees from Ed Kroc on Buy Me a Coffee! buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane/c…

HOLY DAMN Ed Kroc. Ed Kroc legit has been one of the most helpful people to me on Twitter. You all need to follow him. He’s a stats/math genius.

I just received 3 coffees from someone on Buy Me a Coffee! buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane/c…

What’s cool about the whole Matthew saga is that you get to see a lot of statisticians’ accounts on X that you don’t usually see. Matthew B Jané

I just received 3 coffees from someone on Buy Me a Coffee! buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane/c…

I just received a coffee from someone on Buy Me a Coffee! buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane/c…

I just received a coffee from EconFella on Buy Me a Coffee! buymeacoffee.com/matthewbjane/c…

I have read the ongoing discussion between Jonathan Haidt, Ferguson, and Matthew B Jané. I will probably write about the whole argument, but one thing I'm unclear on is the claims that there are errors in Ferguson's table. Jonathan Haidt could you clarify?