2 ms·

> If they do conclude things on "students" based on this study, then reproducing it on Dutch students is perfectly fine. No. Just fucking 'no'. It was a study

by vacri 11y ago

> If they do conclude things on "students" based on this study, then reproducing it on Dutch students is perfectly fine. No. Just fucking 'no'. It was a study on affirmative action policies, repeated in a distant country with different public opinions on welfare and social fairness. If you think that that's fine, then you really have no claim to be declaring what psychology should and shouldn't be. > filled of politically oriented baseless claims Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it.

mystikal 11y ago
His point was about whether the term "students" is qualified.
- vacri 11y ago
  If that's the reason for including the study, then it was a bad study to choose to replicate, as it would be clearly not replicable for students of other cultures - in which case, the meta-study researchers are stacking the deck; they would be guilty of the very thing they're decrying.
logicrook 11y ago
So you say 'no' but you don't refute the argument? Can you explain why following correct substitution principles does not work? You could also try to answer to the arguments of harry8, who gave you polite and well-written points, that you consciously ignored and resorted to name-calling ("you're heavily clueless about what psychology is") when you have absolutely no element to back your claim. >Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it. What I mean by filled is that this subsection (which exists in any field, even mathematics) is an important fraction of this particular field. And before you bring this up: I read a lot of important papers in the field, and they were all below my expectations, which were admittedly not very high. I came to think that the "journal of irreproducible results" is one the most serious publications in soft sciences. >Apparently arguments become stronger when you add "fuck" qualifiers Fuck me!

by vacri 11y ago

mystikal 11y ago

His point was about whether the term "students" is qualified.

vacri 11y ago
If that's the reason for including the study, then it was a bad study to choose to replicate, as it would be clearly not replicable for students of other cultures - in which case, the meta-study researchers are stacking the deck; they would be guilty of the very thing they're decrying.

logicrook 11y ago

So you say 'no' but you don't refute the argument? Can you explain why following correct substitution principles does not work? You could also try to answer to the arguments of harry8, who gave you polite and well-written points, that you consciously ignored and resorted to name-calling ("you're heavily clueless about what psychology is") when you have absolutely no element to back your claim. >Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it. What I mean by filled is that this subsection (which exists in any field, even mathematics) is an important fraction of this particular field. And before you bring this up: I read a lot of important papers in the field, and they were all below my expectations, which were admittedly not very high. I came to think that the "journal of irreproducible results" is one the most serious publications in soft sciences. >Apparently arguments become stronger when you add "fuck" qualifiers Fuck me!