Second Foundation

I’ve been reading a lot about the ‘replication crisis’ (low TFR?) in social psychology. Probably much, if not most, of the crap they push is.. crap. For example, there are strong indications that stereotype threat is just a dream. Who could have guessed that?

Some of the players are seriously bothered. Michael Inzslicht, a dealer in stereotype threat and ego depletion: ” As I said, I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not.” It’s the end of the world as he knows it – but I feel fine.

Cyril Kornbluth had a similar crisis of psychology occur in one of his novels, The Syndic. One psychologist showed that a rival school’s constructs simply didn’t correspond to the emotions and reactions of randomly-sampled populations. He tried the same acid test on his own school’s constructs and found out that they didn’t correspond either. That didn’t frighten him: he was a scientist. (!) Everyone from full professors to undergraduate students joined the feeding frenzy and wrecked everything so comprehensively that the field ended up as dead as palmistry. Of course, in the novel, the revisionists weren’t quite right: psychology collapsed because of a massive outbreak of sanity – the neuroses had gone away. I don’t think that’s our problem today.

Maybe we need to show some patience. Western medicine was worse than useless for two thousand years after Hippocrates, but it all turned out OK, not counting people like George Washington who would probably be dead by now anyhow. Someone impatient might have shot all the doctors in 1600 and asked people like Pascal and Fermat to start over from scratch: that would have been a dreadful mistake, surely? Alchemy had a lot of practical results, unlike medicine, but it too generated false theories for thousands of years. Maybe some of our current pseudosciences (fengshui? molybdomancy?) will someday become real and powerful. I’m not holding my breath, but who knows? There are more things in heaven and earth..

Maybe we’ll see the end of science in some other area – say a complete theory of physics, which would be particularly likely if we’re living in a simulation. Then, with a little luck, we’d see a conquest of the hallowed halls of psychology by red-handed physikers in search of full-bodied wantons and grant support, just as displaced Huns kicked Gothic ass.

The real question is what purpose should social psychology serve? If the point is to learn new truths, trying to straighten out the existing players is unlikely to be the most effective path. They don’t seem to be terribly smart or insightful – if they were, they wouldn’t be in this mess. They’re obviously not mathletes. They really, really want some fairly silly things to be true – that’s a huge handicap, one that shows no sign of abating. Judging from the state of the field, curiosity is not their strongest passion.

If I were King, I would fire them all and start over with new personnel. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. There’s no point in being inhumane about it: we could retrain them for jobs more suited to their capabilities (by teaching them THE WORDS).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Second Foundation

  1. Perhaps social psychology was a bit of a play pen area. Experimental psychologists certainly thought so. They regarded it as so “soft” as to be almost liquid. The field certainly produced a lot of entertaining findings which seemed to have policy implications.
    As to the analogy with medicine, qua Malinowski on magic and religion (superstition arises when matters are uncertain but important for survival, like harvests) , in the case of medicine patients had a desperate wish to hope that something, anything would cure them, so there was a flourishing market for quackery. Wait a moment….. it is all becoming clear to me. Yep, good analogy.

    • Jim says:

      Yes, the only cure for quackery is penicillin.

    • Harold says:

      Computing scientist Edsger W. Dijkstra, from EWD637,

      “ The second rule is an “external” one: it deals with the relation between “the scientific world” and “the real world”. It is as follows:

      "We all like our work to be socially relevant and scientifically sound. If we can find a topic satisfying both desires, we are lucky; if the two targets are in conflict with each other, let the requirement of scientific soundness prevail." 

      The reason for this rule is obvious. If you do a piece of “perfect” work in which no one is interested, no harm is done, on the contrary: at least something “perfect”—be it irrelevant—has been added to our culture. If, however, you offer a shaky, would-be solution to an urgent problem, you do indeed harm to the world which, in view of the urgency of the problem, will only be too willing to apply your ineffective remedy. It is no wonder that charlatanry always flourishes in connection with incurable diseases. (Our second rule is traditionally violated by social sciences to such an extent that one can now question if they deserve the name “sciences” at all.”

  2. A simple solution is to require that students pass a rigourous test in mathematics before being admitted to any accredited degree in psychology. By excluding the chaff this way, the discipline can sort out its problems within a generation.

    • Anonymous says:

      That, and they should have to pass the LSAT.

    • Li says:

      Psychometrics, though no doubt highly quantitative by social science standards, is far less mathematically demanding than modern economics, but is there any doubt here as to which field is the more impressive and/or successful at describing the real world?

      I think Jonathan Haidt identified the main part of the problem well – way too many moralistic leftist academics in the field.

    • silberstreak says:

      The kind of people who can pass a rigorous test in mathematics are probably not the same people who are attracted to research in psychology.

  3. Or just a good course on statistics.

    • dearieme says:

      It has proved practically impossible to get medical men to learn any useful amount of statistics, as distinct from statistical recipes, so what chance with social scientists?

      I mean, anyone with any experience of the matter knows that medics are, on average, far cleverer than social scientists. Even your GP, bored silly by a career of inspecting grandma’s ingrowing toe-nails, was once a bright youth.

      • Larry, San Francisco says:

        When I was in college I was an Economics major and forced to take introductory Bio Stats because the department felt that the regular social since stat was too wimpy. Being a quant I totally kicked ass in it (the only points I lost were for neatness in my homework-yes that is true). Thinking I was a genius I took a class in Molecular Biology. Although the pre-meds had only a shaky knowledge of stat they sure kicked my ass there. On a side note my doctor would occasionally ask for my help to understand some of the claims the drug salesmen were making.

    • benhardisty1 says:

      Ha! I think that’s a great idea. When I did my M.S. in Enviro. Science we took a statistical methods course taught by a statistician our first term in the program, and if you didn’t get at least an 85% you flat-out were given an F for the course, and made to re-take it or leave the program. The first week the instructor said, “You’re training to be scientists, now prove you’re at our level.” Well, later a bunch of people said, “This is way too strict” and wrote a letter to a dean (or higher-up of some sort) complaining. As it turned out, a lot of the people who signed that letter did not, in fact, get their 85… I didn’t sign it myself, because I liked the policy.

    • et.cetera says:

      There is no such thing, in my experience. It is so bad, it seems, that a sizeable proportion of mathematicians do not even consider statistics to be mathematics. This is a very unfortunate thing to notice (in more ways than one).

      • Jim says:

        What makes you say that?

      • Would said mathematicians have ever heard of quantum mechanics? Despite the name (“mechanics”) its largely statistics. And, not to spoil Gregs rhetorical flow but there is a large wodge of stats in psychology (at least in Europe, I don’ know about the states) much of which derives from the founders in the fields of genetics (Fisher, Pearson etc). That a lot of people might not use stats is another thing entirely…but then the same could be said of branches of physics where they make stuff up as they go along. Like string theorists.

  4. The important bit is the statistics, of course, but there is a danger of students taking courses in statistics that are tailored for people with a limited mathematical background, resulting in a recipe-book knowledge of statistical techniques, too superficial for devising studies that are novel yet reliable.

    • AppSocRes says:

      Any course in statistics that isn’t taught at a level where the standard distributions, e.g., Chi-square and F, are related to the Normal Distribution via moment generating functions, is just about useless. At this minimal level of understanding the student can be made aware of the often tenuous link between the underlying mathematical assumptions of statistical hypothesis testing and the messy, real world realities. Unfortunately, preparation fort his kind of course requires at least a year or two of calculus and a semester or so of linear algebra. Requirements like these would considerably thin the herd of wannabe “social scientists.

      I’d also point out that other much “harder science” fields also suffer from an abysmal ignorance of statistics. For example, despite all the brouhaha over anthropogenic global warming I have seen exactly one published analysis of recent temperature trends using rigorous methods for analyzing temperature time series data, i.e., Box Jenkins techniques. The study found that recent temperature trends suggested a stationary ARIMA(1,0,0) process, i.e., a random walk. As far as I can tell it’s since been ignored.

      • Jim says:

        Some knowledge of harmonic analysis would also be desirable.

      • jb says:

        One of my regrets in life is that I never took a real statistics course when I was studying physics, and had all the prerequisite math down cold. I’ve mostly forgotten that math since then (it’s remarkable how little math you need to write software!), and can’t justify spending the time and effort to recover it, so I’m probably never going to have the intuitive feel for statistics that a semester or two of coursework would have given me.

      • EH says:

        The ones that most need to be kept out are the ones who use cookbook statistics without real understanding. Unfortunately many statistics professors fall into this category — some can’t even get the Monty Hall problem right, let alone explain it. But there’s a very narrow window of ability; much higher and they’ll understand how to use decision theory and will go into a different academic field, get a real job or maybe even eschew the academic paper mill for an actual education.

        Given that in any field one should be reading many more papers than one writes, a central part of statistics classes should be picking apart papers with bad statistical reasoning and drawing correct inferences from ones that use statistics properly. Since it isn’t essential to passing a required class, hardly any student’s ever learn to read a scientific paper with the needed degree of understanding. Most MDs,for instance, can’t understand the most basic application of Bayes’ theorem to interpreting test results.

  5. Li says:

    Some social psychology of inter-group conflict seemed to make sense to me, e.g. realistic group conflict theory where group tensions are framed as fundamentally arising from zero-sum games over resources. Might be kind of obvious to anyone who has thought about the problem for a few minutes but hey, at least it has some basis in reality. Can’t be said for most other things coming out of the standard social science model.

  6. Jim says:

    Being susceptible to being demoralized by “stereotype threat” seems like a personality trait that would tend to be weeded out by natural selection. Poor Chinese immigrants to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century don’t to seem to have been much affected by “stereotype threat”.

    • Dale says:

      It would be weeded out if stereotype threat wasn’t a warning of dangers not yet seen. In a lot of historical situations, the stereotype of “Xs don’t do Y” was well-enforced by punishment of Xs that attempted to do Y. Modern life is unusual that often you don’t have to care much about whether the people around you agree with you or not, much of your needs are satisfied in an impersonal market, you can relocate to more congenial places, employers, etc., you can buy insurance against the risks of life, and the judicial system specifically protects you from direct punishment by your neighbors for deviation.

    • Dale says:

      Hmmm, I think it goes deeper than that…

      The original tests of “stereotype threat” were the observation that offhand remarks by test proctors in large undergraduate exams could significantly modify the between-group differences in scores. But exams are an unnatural situation — by the time you’re sitting in an exam, the benefits to be gained from scoring well on the exam far exceed the effort (resources) you need to expend to maximize your score. And the exam is almost certainly “objective” in that whatever in-group/out-group biases show up in the scores will only be via the biases’ effects on variables like IQ and subject-specific knowledge, variables on which the test-taker has considerable information; they aren’t going to subtract 10 points from your score just because you’re in an out-group.

      But most other situations aren’t like that. Consider applying for admission to Harvard. It’s going to take considerable resources to apply. The value of doing well (being admitted) is uncertain. If you do poorly (fall well below the admission threshold), applying more resources won’t gain you anything. And there are plenty of alternative places to invest resources (e.g., applying to Brandeis) that might offer a better return. In a context like that, any scuttlebutt regarding how your Jewish-sounding surname will affect your chances of getting in to Harvard is an indicator to the optimal level of resources to apply to the task.

      Interestingly, this approach leads to a testable prediction. The above argumnent applies because the situation is winner-take-all, or at least, winners-take-most: Knowing that you’re being downgraded due to your group membership means that the incremental benefit of expending resources is less than it otherwise would be, leading to investment of fewer resources and lower scores for the group. But in a situation where the goal is to avoid scoring at the lower end but that scoring unusually well will not be rewarded, a loser-loses-everything situation, knowing that you’re being downgraded due to your group membership means that the incremental benefit of expending resources is higher than it otherwise would be, leading to investment of more resources and higher scores for the group.

  7. Jim says:

    Yes, trying to reason with these people seems as hopeless as convincing the Ayatollah Khomeini that the Koran is bunk.

  8. Jim says:

    Perhaps it is not so much that these people are not smart in terms of high IQ but that they are not really interested in the truth about things.

    • This. I think teaching statistics would be wonderful, but not a large percentage of the population is going to have the candlepower for it. Teaching folks to identify some fallacies might be better. But I think it does come down to personal traits that are not necessarily correlated with intelligence – honesty, skepticism, humility, courage, and integrity, for starters. Pride of craft doesn’t seem to be enough in most cases.

      I have a friend who taught ice-climbing to rich dabblers. Ten sessions. On one of the first three sessions he would have the group turn back, either because of a real danger that he had scouted before that he led them to, or if necessary, on a pretense he invented. Those who could not turn back, or created enough difficulty about it, were dropped from the course. They were dangerous to have along. What they had invested in money, time, and pride warped their judgement.

      Students of any discipline – hell, just human beings in general – have to learn somewhere along the line to admit that something that they really wanted to be true, and even laid down some markers on, just isn’t true and must be abandoned.

  9. AnonymousCoward says:

    Sorry, what do you mean by “(by teaching them THE WORDS).” ?

  10. I am impressed with what you require of a proper statistics course, but I had more modest requirement: simply understanding that a sample should be representative of the population in question, which usually means of the general population; understanding that you cannot have multiple variables on small samples and hope to get replicable results; and that any “corrections” your make to your raw data have to be spelled out and justified. That would cover about 80% of the problems with much of psychological research.

  11. Dale says:

    You write, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” But of course, who is “we”? All humans collectively could reshape the field, of course. But how many critics are there really and how much power do they have?

  12. Just Asking says:

    Dr. Cochran,

    Do you think that medical efforts within the last century to minimize infant mortality and save premature infants has significantly changed the genetics of Westerners?

  13. I consider the courses I took in college on quantitative and qualitative methods among the most important (if not the mot important) of my undergraduate years. I learned thereby a great many important things about how not to conduct an experiment and how to think about experimental methodology (not to mention stats.)

    But hte real problem with these fields is not lack of rigorous statistical background but total and absolutely rigid ideological conformity, enforced by the elders of the fields–advisors, hiring committees, textbook writers, journal editors, etc., who all believe in the same ideology and so have come to see their field as “proving” their ideology. It is similar to saying that everyone in “Women’s studies” is a feminist who believes that “science” proves that women are oppressed because everyone they know has done studies “proving” it.

    Only in the Social Sciences more generally, we get this mish-mash of everything from Marxists to Freudians to folks who like Foucault and Said, where the goal is to mush up long-winded descriptions of otherwise simple phenomena until you get long-winded Chomsky Sentences.

    Ideology drives both the publication biases and the wishful thinking that underlie this crisis. Just reading the Wikipedia pages on a variety of Social Science oriented topics reveals how very little real research or knowledge is generated in these fields, and how much is based on individual theorists’ personal views. I often think, “You know, an economist would probably come up with a very different explanation for this!”

    Obviously different fields study different aspects of phenomena, but entire fields should not become reduced to trying to prove one political ideology or another. If they are, they should label themselves explicitly, rather than make a pretense of neutrality.
    When ideology rather than correctness become the standard for publication (not to mention hiring and tenure,) the natural result is incorrectness.

  14. Just Asking says:

    One, more thing…

    If you were to genetically engineer a society to have very good cooperation, how would you do it? Cloning, green beard genes? Given that cloning is a relatively low technological threshold that we ought to see some group try it in order to dominate all others.

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      It would be interesting to take the list of top ten best countries to live and see if they have anything in common (apart from obvious stuff which they share with others not in the top 10 like IQ).

      IIRC a lot/most/all of them are small either in size or population of both.

      My guess would be to maximize their relatedness – which without cloning might require a population that has married exogamously for a long time but mostly within an optimally sized endogamous pool in a relatively small, flat-ish country like Denmark.

  15. Patrick Boyle says:

    I’m not sure why you are so concerned with social psychology. There’s very little to it obviously. Why bother? There used to be Psycho Cybernetics and General Semantics too. These things fade.

    I see that Melisa Harris-Perry the leading voice on cable for Social Psychology has quit and gone back to wherever such people go.

    I taught statistics for about five years at night. I tried once to teach a graduate course in stat so I wouldn’t get so bored but only two students signed up. The school was so desperate to keep me teaching the intro course they let me lecture to those two unlucky students. Normally as a private profit making school they were ruthless in canceling classes that had low enrollment. But they needed stat teachers bad.

    That was a long time ago but recently I thought I might come out of retirement and teach a few classes again. To my surprise there are a lot of openings to teach or tutor in two subjects – statistics and chemistry. Sorry Greg there seems to be no market for physics. As it happens I have taught both subjects. But stat is more attractive for someone like me who is too lazy to prepare. There doesn’t seem to be any new material in business stat. It’s all just as I remember it.

    • Erik Sieven says:

      the problem with it that for example stereotype threat is used in the training of teachers throughout the western world, and probably also in many non-western countries. There are a lot of people who strongly desire legitimation for the ideology and when some us-american “scientist” is willing to step up, publish it, give it a fancy name and put the tag of an american university on it it will be used.

  16. For several years now, Inzlicht has actually been one of the major critics of the limited-resource model (“ego depletion”) of self-control, and in fact is behind one of the leading alternative models (the process model):

  17. st says:

    The giant problem with the plan is, they study statistics. Always have. PhD in sociology requires 9 credits in statistics, which is normally 3 different semester long courses in statistics on a graduate and postgraduate level. Plus 1.5 credits from the bachelor’s programs. But it does not help.
    There’s even bigger problem – anyone in doubt can check the GRE scores of the admitted students for all PhD programs in many US universities. I did it back in 2005 out of curiosity. Biology and genetics underwent rapid development in the last 10 years. Yet the admission GRE scores of the students in social sciences were actually higher – i mean a lot higher – than the scores of the students in natural sciences – math section included. Still the discoveries in social sciences in the last – 70 years, let say – are nearly meaningless. And genetics is the fastest runner on the field. It is not about math and not about IQ.Just – truth is no longer welcome in the departments of social sciences. Absolutely unwelcome. When a student from the social sciences realises that, there are two options – live immediately – some do; or play the same game as the rest., which is- pretend walking on water is possible. Never question this – even walk on the water – but carefully – make sure that you are actually stepping on the stones hiding under the surface – sinking is not welcome because it might imply that walking on the surface is not possible. So these guys, that take the results form the “research” literally and try to repeat them – it’s like believing someone has really been walking on the water surface and they are trying to replicate it. Can’t.

    • JayMan says:

      Yet they all don’t seem to know something they should have learned in Statistics 101: correlation is not causation.

      • EH says:

        More precisely: causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, (though there are few if any cases where causation doesn’t imply correlation.)

    • gcochran9 says:

      ” Yet the admission GRE scores of the students in social sciences were actually higher – i mean a lot higher – than the scores of the students in natural sciences – math section included. “:

      I don’t believe it.

      • candid_observer says:

        Here’s a detailed and quite recent breakdown of GRE scores by intended graduate major.

        Click to access gre_guide_table4.pdf

        Quick overview:
        Except for economics, with an average 160 math GRE, all of the social sciences average about 150 (I’m pretty sure that 10 points is roughly a SD).

        On the other hand, math, physical sciences, and engineering average 158-9. The life sciences, on the other hand, average 151.

      • st says:

        From the site of duke uni:
        Genetics and Genomics: PhD Admissions and Enrollment Statistics, years 2014, 15, 16:

        GRE VERBAL 162 162 161
        GRE QUANTITATIVE 161 158 161

        Biology: PhD Admissions and Enrollment Statistics:
        GRE VERBAL 159 161 157
        GRE QUANTITATIVE 161 161 157

        and now social sciences:
        Philosophy: PhD Admissions and Enrollment Statistics:
        GRE VERBAL 164 168 168
        GRE QUANTITATIVE 159 162 (!) 158
        Cultural Anthopology: PhD Admissions and Enrollment Statistics:
        GRE VERBAL 164 163 160
        GRE QUANTITATIVE 157 156 160 (!)
        And sociology:
        GRE VERBAL 161 160 164
        GRE QUANTITATIVE 157 158 158

        I couldn’t find that data from 2005; back then it was shocking (sociology atop of everything else in GRE quantitative). The things have changed a bit – natural sciences having caught up – more smart people choosing natural sciences instead going in dead end with social sci;, still no significant difference in GRE quantitative, if any. What a waste.

        • gcochran9 says:

          candid observer is right, you are wrong. You can’t base a trend on one school.

          • st says:

            Sure. He finds difference of 1 (one) point in in the GRE quantitative b/n life sciences and social sciences PhD candidates. Do you or him think that this one point is what’s accountable for the difference in the achievements of life sciences and social sciences in the last decade?
            If you do, you refuse to see what is at front of your eyes. No worries, you are not alone. But you have your doubts in the future of science and in the future of the west, so i know you do see real problems. The system is rotten and corrupted all the way top to bottom. It is not designed to manufacture science anymore.
            The real problem is the King Has No Clothes.

            No one wants to say it. Indeed, why would anyone be risking to say whatever is at front of everyone’s eyes.
            I do not think that’s even everything. It took 7 years for the US to to achieve its space moon-landing objectives – instead of 9 as expected. It was back in the 60-es, an epoch ago. 50 years later GW Bush announced the new objectives – to make same moon landing again; and he set the term of the project to …20 years. What’s wrong, whatever took 7 years in the 60ies would take 20 now? What’s the matter, Wernher von Brown’s no longer around? Or the hard sciences took a step back as well in the last 60 years?
            But yes, I wish i was wrong and substituting sociologists with mathematicians will do the job.

          • ursiform says:

            “What’s wrong, whatever took 7 years in the 60ies would take 20 now?”

            Funding. We don’t have a compelling reason today to spend whatever it takes.

            Not sure we had a compelling reason in the 60s, but at least we thought we did.

    • et.cetera says:

      Statistics is a cakewalk. I should not be at all surprised to find out that, say, among math faculty, statisticians have the lowest average IQ (in the low 120s, if I had to venture a guess). If my hunch is correct (highly likely), it is also then not that surprising that women seem to flock to stats departments a lot more frequently than they do elsewhere. But it is awkward…

      As for the stuff they teach to the sociologists and their friends, it is significantly watered down. This is immediately obvious from a summary reading over what the average stats textbook recommended to them looks like inside: prolix and lean on actual math.

  18. There are some good reverse indicators for popular science, though. I was worried about the bees and CCD, but saw that the studies looked flawed and ambiguous, and I wondered if that was just me being too critical. What to think, who to believe…

    Then Time Magazine did a 2013 cover story on A World Without Bees and I breathed a sigh of relief.

  19. I think that social psychology matters, because any replicable result would have consequences. I think that you can get pretty far with simple statistics and a modicum of maths. However, if the practitioners can’t bear to report what they find, and avert their eyes to other less palatable to them explanation, then the field cannot progress. In sum, you can lead a clever silly to reality, but he does not have to open his eyes.

  20. EH says:

    “…with a little luck, we’d see a conquest of the hallowed halls of psychology by red-handed physikers in search of full-bodie wantons and grant support…”

    I have long wanted a “WWGD” bracelet.
    Q: What would (physics) Genghis do?
    A: Crush their faculty, drive their departments before him and hear the lamentations of their graduate students.

    (Extra credit: If not above 4 on a Likehurt scale then: execute Procrustes’ method with chosen axes [pref. steel], otherwise convert to matrix configuration by convolving their Fock spaces and performing Wick rotation on the Khanonical high-bandwidth basis function.)

  21. Tim says:

    “Maybe we’ll see the end of science in some other area – say a complete theory of physics, which would be particularly likely if we’re living in a simulation.”

    I don’t know if being in a simulation matters here at all. At some point we will reach the end. There just can’t be any further depth of experiments that reveal anything.

    There must be more than just the four dimensions we usually think about (or else even the common electromagnetic stuff needs ‘magic’ forces to work).

    ‘Time’ is the biggest problem for us. We think it is the most important dimension, when we can’t even devise experiments to see the bulk of real physics (simulated or not).

    • Jim says:

      “A complete theory of physics” – Why expect that there is some recursively enumerable set of propositions which is a “complete theory of physics”? I guess that would be the case if we are living in a simulation.

  22. Sinij says:

    If we live in a simulation, it follows that our minds are also simulated and it is possible to create complete and predictive model (but maybe not from within simulation).

  23. n/a says:

    I’d love to hear your thoughts on the universe as a simulation. I’m starting to wonder if the fuzzy edgy of physics (like a particle existing in multiple places) is our math running up against the edges of the simulation (which is not rendered at a resolution that fine).

  24. Pingback: What I’m Reading: April 2016 | graph paper diaries

  25. Pingback: Quick thoughts on the “replication crisis” and calls to make the field more mathematically rigorous | evolutionistx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s