<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:fireside="http://fireside.fm/modules/rss/fireside">
  <channel>
    <fireside:hostname>web02.fireside.fm</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 11:58:58 -0500</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>Two Psychologists Four Beers - Episodes Tagged with “Structured Abstracts”</title>
    <link>https://www.fourbeers.com/tags/structured%20abstracts</link>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 06:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
    <description>Two psychologists endeavor to drink four beers while discussing news and controversies in science, academia, and beyond.
</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Yoel Inbar, Michael Inzlicht, and Alexa Tullett</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>Two psychologists endeavor to drink four beers while discussing news and controversies in science, academia, and beyond.
</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/6/69da8ae3-a19e-41ed-a678-0e145a936a3f/cover.jpg?v=3"/>
    <itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:keywords>psychology, beer, academia, science, controversy</itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Yoel Inbar, Michael Inzlicht, and Alexa Tullett</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>fourbeerspod@gmail.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
<itunes:category text="Science">
  <itunes:category text="Social Sciences"/>
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
<itunes:category text="Science">
  <itunes:category text="Life Sciences"/>
</itunes:category>
<item>
  <title>Episode 80: The C-Word (with Julia Rohrer)</title>
  <link>https://www.fourbeers.com/80</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">e70c0676-a414-418e-bdf3-524b226c87cd</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 06:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
  <author>Yoel Inbar, Michael Inzlicht, and Alexa Tullett</author>
  <enclosure url="https://aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/69da8ae3-a19e-41ed-a678-0e145a936a3f/e70c0676-a414-418e-bdf3-524b226c87cd.mp3" length="62684819" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episode>80</itunes:episode>
  <itunes:title>The C-Word (with Julia Rohrer)</itunes:title>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Yoel Inbar, Michael Inzlicht, and Alexa Tullett</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making.</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:26:31</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/6/69da8ae3-a19e-41ed-a678-0e145a936a3f/cover.jpg?v=3"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making. To illustrate, we subject Yoel's first paper, "Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals," to some vigorous post-publication peer review. We also discuss what makes Julia most hopeful about psychology, as well as the recent progress in alcohol-free beer. Special Guest: Julia Rohrer.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>structured abstracts, causal inference, directed acyclic graphs, alcohol-free beer</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making. To illustrate, we subject Yoel&#39;s first paper, &quot;Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals,&quot; to some vigorous post-publication peer review. We also discuss what makes Julia most hopeful about psychology, as well as the recent progress in alcohol-free beer.</p><p>Special Guest: Julia Rohrer.</p><p>Links:</p><ul><li><a title="Two Psychologists Four Beers on Untappd" rel="nofollow" href="https://untappd.com/user/fourbeerspod">Two Psychologists Four Beers on Untappd</a></li><li><a title="Who would win, 100 duck-sized strategic ambiguities vs. 1 horse-sized structured abstract? – The 100% CI" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.the100.ci/2021/12/08/who-would-win-100-duck-sized-strategic-ambiguities-vs-1-horse-sized-structured-abstract/">Who would win, 100 duck-sized strategic ambiguities vs. 1 horse-sized structured abstract? – The 100% CI</a></li><li><a title="PsyArXiv Preprints | The Only Thing That Can Stop Bad Causal Inference Is Good Causal Inference" rel="nofollow" href="https://psyarxiv.com/mz5jx">PsyArXiv Preprints | The Only Thing That Can Stop Bad Causal Inference Is Good Causal Inference</a></li><li><a title="The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data | AJPH | Vol. 108 Issue 5" rel="nofollow" href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304337">The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data | AJPH | Vol. 108 Issue 5</a></li><li><a title="Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals: Cognition and Emotion: Vol 23, No 4" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930802110007">Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals: Cognition and Emotion: Vol 23, No 4</a></li></ul>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making. To illustrate, we subject Yoel&#39;s first paper, &quot;Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals,&quot; to some vigorous post-publication peer review. We also discuss what makes Julia most hopeful about psychology, as well as the recent progress in alcohol-free beer.</p><p>Special Guest: Julia Rohrer.</p><p>Links:</p><ul><li><a title="Two Psychologists Four Beers on Untappd" rel="nofollow" href="https://untappd.com/user/fourbeerspod">Two Psychologists Four Beers on Untappd</a></li><li><a title="Who would win, 100 duck-sized strategic ambiguities vs. 1 horse-sized structured abstract? – The 100% CI" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.the100.ci/2021/12/08/who-would-win-100-duck-sized-strategic-ambiguities-vs-1-horse-sized-structured-abstract/">Who would win, 100 duck-sized strategic ambiguities vs. 1 horse-sized structured abstract? – The 100% CI</a></li><li><a title="PsyArXiv Preprints | The Only Thing That Can Stop Bad Causal Inference Is Good Causal Inference" rel="nofollow" href="https://psyarxiv.com/mz5jx">PsyArXiv Preprints | The Only Thing That Can Stop Bad Causal Inference Is Good Causal Inference</a></li><li><a title="The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data | AJPH | Vol. 108 Issue 5" rel="nofollow" href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304337">The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data | AJPH | Vol. 108 Issue 5</a></li><li><a title="Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals: Cognition and Emotion: Vol 23, No 4" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930802110007">Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals: Cognition and Emotion: Vol 23, No 4</a></li></ul>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
