The road less traveled: Understanding adversaries is hard but smarter than ignoring them
Replies to comments by Cowan (see record 2022-57821-002), Vlasceanu et al. (see record 2022-57821-003), Tullett (see record 2022-57821-004), Marsh (see record 2022-57821-005), Ceci et al. (see record 2022-57821-006), Tatlidil et al. (see record 2022-57821-007), and Melloni (see record 2022-57821-008) on the original article by Clark et al. (see record 2022-57821-001) regarding adversarial collaborations to improve behavioral science. Include a brief description of reply to commentary. The target article proposed that normalizing adversarial collaborations (ACs) will catalyze progress in the behavioral sciences (Clark et al., 2022). ACs require scholars to state their own positions precisely, address the real (not caricatured) version of their opponents’ claims, and work with their adversary to design studies that all parties agree constitute fair tests (rather than carefully crafting studies likely to confirm their preferred hypotheses). The authors welcome this opportunity to respond to seven commentaries by distinguished scholars, who mostly agreed that ACs are a good idea in principle but highlighted the practical difficulties of changing norms. They also provided numerous recommendations for how to change norms in the behavioral sciences and better incentivize ACs. The authors can respond to only a fraction of the many insightful points made in these commentaries, but we encourage curious scholars to read all of them. In their reply, they identify themes running through the discussions—and our grounds for optimism that, although ACs are challenging, the tipping point may be closer than we think given the likely benefits from ACs.