4 ms·

The tragedy of the ordeal is that she tried and was lined up against the wall regardless, mostly due to lack of civility and poor communication: > But the emai

The tragedy of the ordeal is that she tried and was lined up against the wall regardless, mostly due to lack of civility and poor communication: > But the email that Simmons and Simonsohn had sent was, in fact, ambiguous: They had explicitly told her to drop the P-curve and yet left the impression that the paper was otherwise sound. At my request, Simmons looked back at his original email. I watched as he read it over. “Oh, yeah,” he said quietly. He had a pained look on his face. “We did say to drop the graph, didn’t we?” He read it over again, then sat back. “I didn’t remember that. This may be a big misunderstanding about — that email is too polite.” Cuddy and Carney had taken their advice literally.

conistonwater 9y ago
"lined up against the wall", really? I think you would be more convincing if you toned it down a bit on the metaphors.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  It was parent's metaphor, not mine. The substance holds.
  - conistonwater 9y ago
    I don't see it in that comment. Where? I only see "Cuddy lost her reputation rather than her head.", which is not at all similar. (I don't see it in NYT either.)
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Is there really a substantive difference between losing your head to a guillotine and being lined up and shot? (The NYT begins the metaphor with "revolution", parent extends it with "violent revolution", and I switched out one form of violence with another).
  - hirundo 9y ago
    It was the New York Time's metaphor, not mine. But your substance does hold. Cuddy may have lessened her punishment, though, had she denounced the bourgeoisie with more fervor.
matt_morgan 9y ago
This is really the key point of the article (or maybe one of two, the other being Cuddy's unwillingness to accept change in favor of continuing to survive on her unsupported results); and the overall message is that we all do dumb things, directed toward our own benefit, under pressure. (E.g. Carney saying there's no ninth planet, when in fact they only did not show there is a ninth planet). Gelman is actually the only primary player in the piece who mostly escapes this; he does some nerdy things but in no case says something other than what he means, or actively deceives (as Simmons appears to have done here) or self-deceives (Cuddy).

conistonwater 9y ago

"lined up against the wall", really? I think you would be more convincing if you toned it down a bit on the metaphors.

throwawayjava 9y ago
It was parent's metaphor, not mine. The substance holds.
- conistonwater 9y ago
  I don't see it in that comment. Where? I only see "Cuddy lost her reputation rather than her head.", which is not at all similar. (I don't see it in NYT either.)
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Is there really a substantive difference between losing your head to a guillotine and being lined up and shot? (The NYT begins the metaphor with "revolution", parent extends it with "violent revolution", and I switched out one form of violence with another).
- hirundo 9y ago
  It was the New York Time's metaphor, not mine. But your substance does hold. Cuddy may have lessened her punishment, though, had she denounced the bourgeoisie with more fervor.

matt_morgan 9y ago

This is really the key point of the article (or maybe one of two, the other being Cuddy's unwillingness to accept change in favor of continuing to survive on her unsupported results); and the overall message is that we all do dumb things, directed toward our own benefit, under pressure. (E.g. Carney saying there's no ninth planet, when in fact they only did not show there is a ninth planet). Gelman is actually the only primary player in the piece who mostly escapes this; he does some nerdy things but in no case says something other than what he means, or actively deceives (as Simmons appears to have done here) or self-deceives (Cuddy).