critique of statistical validity must address two main points, (1) effect size and (2) statistical significance. Effect Size: Whether/How do they report how large their effect was or how much variability was there? For example was it an R-value? Was it a Beta in a regression table? Was it a difference between means? Was it a percentage? Using self-affirmation to increase intellectual humility in debate Regular healthy public debates signal a progressive and democratic society, but meaningful interactions and reciprocal attitude change can only occur if respective parties listen to each other in an open-minded, calm and tolerant way [1]. Unfortunately, this is not a common experience during debate, with many people experiencing stress and frustration from conversations with which © 2023 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Commons Attribution License http://commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 03 February 2023 they disagree [2]. Debaters often insult the competence of others, engage in ad hominem attacks, show no willingness to even consider changing their perspectives when presented with alternatives and fail to accept their own limitations. These divisive characteristics pose a risk to democratic coherence in societies, potentially exacerbating violent conflict and putting individuals materially and psychologically at risk. An antidote to this situation, intellectual humility, is receiving increasing attention. Philosophers understand intellectual humility as the disposition to own or accept one's intellectual shortcomings out of a genuine desire for knowledge and truth [3,4]. This orientation is often contrasted with intellectually arrogant and intellectually servile behaviour, which obstruct the acquisition of knowledge and understanding [5,6]. Intellectual arrogance entails expressing an unquestioned superiority in one's attitudes, and intell

The passage above does not appear to address the critique of statistical validity, but rather discusses the concept of intellectual humility and its potential role in promoting productive and respectful debates.

The general overview of what a critique of statistical validity might entail is that:

Effect size can be reported in a variety of ways, such as through correlation coefficients (such as an R-value), regression coefficients (such as a Beta), or differences between means (such as a Cohen's d). When critiquing a study's effect size, it is important to consider whether the effect size is large enough to be meaningful and relevant to the research question. This can be compared to effect sizes reported in similar studies or in the broader literature.

Therefore, a critique of statistical validity should evaluate both the strength of the observed effect and the likelihood that the effect is not due to chance, while also considering other factors that may influence the study's statistical analysis.

Learn more about statistical validity from

https://brainly.com/question/30019043

#SPJ1

See complete text below

critique of statistical validity must address two main points, (1) effect size and (2) statistical significance. Effect Size: Whether/How do they report how large their effect was or how much variability was there? For example was it an R-value? Was it a Beta in a regression table? Was it a difference between means? Was it a percentage? Using self-affirmation to increase intellectual humility in debate Regular healthy public debates signal a progressive and democratic society, but meaningful interactions and reciprocal attitude change can only occur if respective parties listen to each other in an open-minded, calm and tolerant way [1]. Unfortunately, this is not a common experience during debate, with many people experiencing stress and frustration from conversations with which © 2023 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Commons Attribution License http://commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 03 February 2023 they disagree [2]. Debaters often insult the competence of others, engage in ad hominem attacks, show no willingness to even consider changing their perspectives when presented with alternatives and fail to accept their own limitations. These divisive characteristics pose a risk to democratic coherence in societies, potentially exacerbating violent conflict and putting individuals materially and psychologically at risk. An antidote to this situation, intellectual humility, is receiving increasing attention. Philosophers understand intellectual humility as the disposition to own or accept one's intellectual shortcomings out of a genuine desire for knowledge and truth [3,4]. This orientation is often contrasted with intellectually arrogant and intellectually servile behaviour, which obstruct the acquisition of knowledge and understanding [5,6]. Intellectual arrogance entails expressing an unquestioned superiority in one's attitudes, and intellectual servility entails accepting uncritically the opinions of others without reflection or analysis [5,6].