{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021400778210116732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007782101167315175, 'mean_word_length': 5.204819277108434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Theory Development Requires an Epistemological Sea Change

Up until 2019, `psychological reform' mostly meant methodological and statistical reform of empirical research practices in psychology. Since then, however, we have seen a surge of proposals for theoretical reform. While those calling for theoretical reform may agree on many things, they also do not form a monolith. One aim of the present commentary is to highlight some of this diversity by commenting on Fried's target article in this broader context.