4 ms·
Kind of feel that replication study gets abused as a kind of "psychology is unreliable" argument. Instead, I think it makes a lot more sense to view it as an u
by xelxebar 10y ago
Kind of feel that replication study gets abused as a kind of "psychology is unreliable" argument.
Instead, I think it makes a lot more sense to view it as an upper bound on the average reliability of our own personal beliefs about human behaviour.
I mean, most of our day to day cognating about other people is fraught with unfalsifiable claims, dubious reasoning, and horrendous sample sizes.
Takeaway: Be extra skeptical about psychology research claims and triply so about your own beliefs regarding people, including yourself.
- lutusp 10y ago> Kind of feel that replication study gets abused as a kind of "psychology is unreliable" argument. Since the study demonstrates that psychology is unreliable, I think it's something other than abuse. > I mean, most of our day to day cognating about other people is fraught with unfalsifiable claims, dubious reasoning, and horrendous sample sizes. Yes, but we don't call that science or open clinics to treat people who also behave that way. Psychologists do.
- xelxebar 10y ago> Since the study demonstrates that psychology is unreliable, I think it's something other than abuse. Your comment is exactly my point though. I suspect that you see the number 30% and equate that with "bad". However, if 30% is more reliable on average than our own personal heuristics, then doesn't it seems shortsighted to write off every bit of psychology research as "bad science"?