Alex Morgan stared at their screen, sipping what was supposed to be a calming cup of chamomile tea. Instead, their heart rate spiked as they scrolled through yet another Mastodon thread featuring their PhD candidate, Janneke, policing empirical researchers on their statistical choices.
“p < .05 is an arbitrary threshold & NHST is outdated. If you’re still using it, you should reconsider your life choices.”
Alex groaned. This was not the first time Janneke had gone on a crusade against what they deemed “statistical malpractice.” The problem wasn’t that they were wrong—Alex also had strong opinions about misapplied statistics—but there was a difference between pushing for better methods and making early-career researchers cry online.
A knock at the door interrupted their spiraling thoughts. Janneke walked in, looking pleased with themselves, probably still riding the high of their latest statistical takedown. Professor Petrov followed close behind, already opening the jar of sour gummies on Alex’s roommate's desk and plucking out a handful.
“I had an interesting discussion this morning,” Janneke announced, plopping down in the chair opposite Alex. “Someone was trying to defend using means on ordinal data. Can you believe that?”
Alex took a deep breath, but before they could respond, Petrov spoke first, chewing loudly. “Janneke, we need to talk. This is getting out of hand.”
Janneke’s eyes widened. “Oh? About what?”
Petrov folded his arms, popping another gummy into his mouth. “Your enthusiasm for proper methodology is commendable, but your delivery is… lacking.”
Janneke frowned, casting a quick glance at the jar of candy, then at Petrov’s steadily moving hand, as if mentally calculating his sugar intake. “But bad statistics lead to bad science! Should I just let people get away with using Pearson correlations on Likert scales?”
Alex jumped in. “We’re not saying ignore bad statistics. We’re saying that there’s a way to nudge people towards better practices without making them feel like complete failures.” Janneke crossed their arms. “So you’re saying I should just let people be wrong?”
“No,” Petrov said firmly, grabbing yet another gummy. “We are saying that telling a developmental psychologist they should ‘reconsider their life choices’ because they ran an ANOVA might not be the best pedagogical approach.”
Janneke’s lips pressed into a thin line as they watched Petrov chew, their expression unreadable but clearly judging.
Alex suppressed a smile. The dynamic between Petrov and Janneke was oddly fascinating. Petrov, despite his kind nature, had a bluntness that cut straight through academic hedging. He treated Janneke like an equal, but never hesitated to call her out—often while indulging in absurd amounts of sugar. Janneke, for her part, clearly respected Petrov but also seemed to view him as a perplexing enigma: a senior professor who both upheld the highest methodological standards and consumed an objectively concerning amount of gummy candy. It was an ongoing silent battle—one of statistical rigor versus glucose-fueled indifference. Janneke sighed. “Fine. I’ll try to be… softer.”
Petrov nodded approvingly. “Good. Because right now, you sound like the statistics police, and no one listens to the police unless they have to.”
Janneke stood up, already pulling out their phone. “Alright, I’ll try. Maybe.”
They left the office. Alex and Petrov exchanged a look.
“She’s absolutely about to ‘gently’ post a 3,000-word thread on Bayesian priors isn’t she?” Alex asked.
Petrov nodded, handing Alex a dose of gummies. “Without a doubt.” He chewed thoughtfully for a moment, then added, “Teaching is patience. Supervision is patience with candy.”
Alex sighed and took one. Together, they sat in contemplative silence, mindfully chewing their gummies.
Lets write another funny story starring Alex Morgan. Let's say Alex has a phd candidate (random gender) together with professor petrov (the one who like candy). The phd candidate has been a bit overzealous, acting like statistics police on Mastodon to empirical researchers that are trying to do good work. They try to (clumsily) adress this with the candidate, but fail in a funny way. End the story with the phd candidate leaving and Alex and Petrov sharing candy.
Include Petrov in the conversation with the phd student as the main supervisor. Make him kind, but stern and more direct than Alex.
Have Petrov continuously eat candy during the story, and have Janneke judge him for this with her eyes (she doesn't say anything).
Have Petrov start eating candy earlier in the story. Remove the part "At that moment .... clone?" and make the story consistent again. Have Petrov offer Alex candy at the end.
instead of 'chewing another gummy' write 'handing Alex a dose of gummies.'
After the sentence ending 'clearly judging' have Alex reflect internally on Petrov and Janneke's supervision relationship. Have this show some personality of both Petrov and Janneke. At the end, have Petrov saying something profound after 'Without a doubt'. End with Alex and Petrov mindfully chewing their gummies.
remove 'if nothing else, at least the candy was good.'