3 ms·
> One thing that might not be totally obvious from this article and others is that although some effects clearly replicate, and others do not, there are some ef
by forapurpose 8y ago
> One thing that might not be totally obvious from this article and others is that although some effects clearly replicate, and others do not, there are some effects that seem to be in a grey area, where the effects are probably real but much smaller than originally reported.
The two prior replication studies that I know of - the first was several years ago and raised the issue in the public mind afaik, then second maybe in the last year - both replicated almost all of the effects. The problems were that some effects were weaker than in the original studies. Are you saying that this most recent attempt at replication shows a large number of studies with no significant effects at all?
- your-nanny 8y agoreal effects might be weak enough that they only make it through the first time (non replicative) publication process when chance makes the effect seem stronger than it actually is.
- forapurpose 8y ago> real effects might be weak enough that they only make it through the first time (non replicative) publication process when chance makes the effect seem stronger than it actually is. That's hypothetical. What actually happened was what I wrote in the GP: The effects were replicated almost every time, except sometimes they were weaker.
- your-nanny 8y agoyou miss my point. the strength of a novel main finding must be sufficient to warrant the opportunity cost of trying to get it published. a weak but real effect will be more or less strongly indicated in an experiment, just by the vagaries of the sample, but weak results typically will not get published. it is thus not surprising to me that findings might frequently be replicable but weaker than initially was found.