2 ms·

In my mind, 50% replication is not that horrible. Even decent seeming sample sizes might have an 80% chance of replicating at a certain effect size, and the eff

In my mind, 50% replication is not that horrible. Even decent seeming sample sizes might have an 80% chance of replicating at a certain effect size, and the effect size originally reported could be (by chance or other reasons) over-stated, leading to insufficient power. More certainty ends up meaning vast increases in sample size). Another issue that should be tested (have not read paper but doubt it) is not just whether the result is statistically significant, but whether it statistically differs from the original published result. If the effect is weaker, but not statistically different from the published result, I would hesitate to say the effect is not real. Then there is that some of the psychology findings investigated were rather dubious to begin with, and the ones that even non-specialists can identify as being likely to be true replicated.

GreenToad5 8y ago
So, a result that is statistically no more accurate than flipping a coin is acceptable to you? Large cultural shifts have been pushed on a large scale based on studies that may have no more probability of truth than flipping a coin and this is OK to build a society on? I couldn't disagree more.
- SubiculumCode 8y ago
  Your characterization of what I said is overly simplistic and ..wrong. I am saying that even with a good sample, replication studies only have about at most an 80% chance to replicate a true effect for studies that had reported a "moderately-sized" effect size. A lot of other things can account for the extra 30%, including picking the more dubious of findings out there (which seem to be mainly social psychology not cognitive psychology studies). Looking at your other comments on HN, you seem to love throwing bombs and trolling.
  - GreenToad5 8y ago
    That isn't actually even close to what you said (very contrasting statements). 50% is quite horrible (I was not the one who down voted you, but I see others agree). BTW, mentioning your opinion of someone's "other comments" doesn't help your case either. It makes you appear desperate to cause a distraction or detraction.

GreenToad5 8y ago

So, a result that is statistically no more accurate than flipping a coin is acceptable to you? Large cultural shifts have been pushed on a large scale based on studies that may have no more probability of truth than flipping a coin and this is OK to build a society on? I couldn't disagree more.

SubiculumCode 8y ago
Your characterization of what I said is overly simplistic and ..wrong. I am saying that even with a good sample, replication studies only have about at most an 80% chance to replicate a true effect for studies that had reported a "moderately-sized" effect size. A lot of other things can account for the extra 30%, including picking the more dubious of findings out there (which seem to be mainly social psychology not cognitive psychology studies). Looking at your other comments on HN, you seem to love throwing bombs and trolling.
- GreenToad5 8y ago
  That isn't actually even close to what you said (very contrasting statements). 50% is quite horrible (I was not the one who down voted you, but I see others agree). BTW, mentioning your opinion of someone's "other comments" doesn't help your case either. It makes you appear desperate to cause a distraction or detraction.