5 ms·

Cuddy wrote that she was "concerned about the tenor" of the discussion regarding power poses and other disputed studies, worrying that such criticism could have

Cuddy wrote that she was "concerned about the tenor" of the discussion regarding power poses and other disputed studies, worrying that such criticism could have a "chilling effect on science." Cuddy’s not the only one....Fiske, a professor of psychology at Princeton, referred to scientists who search for errors in published studies as "destructo-critics" engaged in "methodological terrorism." Yikes. So when a study is seriously flawed, the bad guy is the one who uncovered it? I'm more concerned that peer reviewers aren't searching hard enough for errors.

rwj 10y ago
Peer review serves a useful, but limited, function. In a case like this, the important issue is that failures to replicate can also be published.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dwaltrip 10y ago
Those statements are so incredibly antithetical to the ethos of science. It amazes me they could say something like that and keep face among their peers. My hope is that history does not look kindly on such words.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Those comments are shockingly close to just announcing "caring whether my studies are right gets in the way of my career". I realize that good social scientists may get stuck falling behind bad ones in reputation, and I think that's a structural problem. But responding to that with a demand to stop checking for bad results is shocking, and it's not something that should be acceptable for a practicing researcher. I hope those voices don't slow down the effort to reform these fields.
trhway 10y ago
>such criticism could have a "chilling effect on science." >"destructo-critics" engaged in "methodological terrorism." wonderful. Can be used as responses to [unfavorable] code reviews. Especially effective if typed in while taking a power pose.
drspacemonkey 10y ago
A few weeks ago, I managed to catch blame for finding a bug in our software as if I had created the bug. So "the bad guy is the one who uncovered it" makes sense. At least, in a very depressing way.

rwj 10y ago

Peer review serves a useful, but limited, function. In a case like this, the important issue is that failures to replicate can also be published.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dwaltrip 10y ago

Those statements are so incredibly antithetical to the ethos of science. It amazes me they could say something like that and keep face among their peers. My hope is that history does not look kindly on such words.

Bartweiss 10y ago
Those comments are shockingly close to just announcing "caring whether my studies are right gets in the way of my career". I realize that good social scientists may get stuck falling behind bad ones in reputation, and I think that's a structural problem. But responding to that with a demand to stop checking for bad results is shocking, and it's not something that should be acceptable for a practicing researcher. I hope those voices don't slow down the effort to reform these fields.

trhway 10y ago

>such criticism could have a "chilling effect on science." >"destructo-critics" engaged in "methodological terrorism." wonderful. Can be used as responses to [unfavorable] code reviews. Especially effective if typed in while taking a power pose.

drspacemonkey 10y ago

A few weeks ago, I managed to catch blame for finding a bug in our software as if I had created the bug. So "the bad guy is the one who uncovered it" makes sense. At least, in a very depressing way.