I haven’t listened to the lectures but my standard philosophy of psychology and statistics question is whatever reason do you have to assume that human behavior can be understood using ideas from stationary processes. The best modeling approach so far in terms of verisimilitude is complex adaptive systems (CAS) which are definitely NOT stationary processes. It has been shown that a reductionist approach to CAS is guaranteed to fail. And yet, people in the social sciences cling to their NHST like little frightened children clinging to their teddy bears to protect them from the bogeyman of mysterious monsters(nonstationarity) BOO!
Amazing to see Meehl get more attention! Discovered him recently myself, and wrote a bit about him and these exact lectures at the end of a recent post (forgive the shameless plug, but may be of some interest to your readers :p) : https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2023/predicting-human-behaviour/#the-oedipus-effect-predicting-changes-the-predicted
One blog post about it, and I'm already excited for the all the blog posts ahead.
I haven’t listened to the lectures but my standard philosophy of psychology and statistics question is whatever reason do you have to assume that human behavior can be understood using ideas from stationary processes. The best modeling approach so far in terms of verisimilitude is complex adaptive systems (CAS) which are definitely NOT stationary processes. It has been shown that a reductionist approach to CAS is guaranteed to fail. And yet, people in the social sciences cling to their NHST like little frightened children clinging to their teddy bears to protect them from the bogeyman of mysterious monsters(nonstationarity) BOO!