5 ms·

TL;DR: they replicated the famous study about liberals and conservatives reacting differently to threats, finding no difference. Science (a famous journal) refu

by mLuby 7y ago

TL;DR: they replicated the famous study about liberals and conservatives reacting differently to threats, finding no difference. Science (a famous journal) refused to publish the null replication. >We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all. Subfield journals are less visible, meaning the message often fails to reach the broader public. They are also less authoritative, meaning the failed replication will have less of an impact on the field if it is not published by Science. Agreed, but maybe the issue here is journals shouldn't be prestigious. I understand journals' historical usefulness, but the Internet has made them obsolete.

tathougies 7y ago
> Agreed, but maybe the issue here is journals shouldn't be prestigious. I understand journals' historical usefulness, but the Internet has made them obsolete. Prestige and historical usefulness are practically synonyms. You're arguing that prestige shouldn't command respect, but this is like arguing against human nature. "Science" should recognize its importance to the world at large and take extra care to publish failures of replications of papers that it reports. The more prestigious the journal, the more carefully they ought to follow this proscription, especially if they wish to maintain their prestige.
- dmix 7y ago
  Agreed, the whole narrative of the internet democratizing things has been largely overstated and poorly supported. So many of the existing social and industry hierarchies were merely replicated on the Internet. As we see with all the popular print newspapers and magazines often being equally or more successfully online. Maybe there were hierarchies for a reason and they were a good thing. Rather it's about building the better hierarchies rather than replacing them entirely with some academic idealistic pipedream (ditto for markets in economics).
  - Dowwie 7y ago
    Widespread adoption of the internet has dramatically changed the world. "Democratization" was an early term used to describe the opportunities of the early internet and it remains ongoing. There have been many great collective accomplishments in the last 20 years that are indicative of that democratization.
earenndil 7y ago
> TL;DR: they replicated the famous study about liberals and conservatives reacting differently to threats, finding no difference I think this is a confusing way to word it; it implies that they successfully replicated the original study, and found no difference between their results and the original study. I might say 'they were unable to replicate the famous study about [...]' or 'they attempted to replicated the famous study [...], finding no difference between liberals and conservatives'.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Wow, English is terrible. You are totally right.
  - MaxLeiter 7y ago
    In this particular case I think it's less English's fault and it's due to the improper use of replicate.
CDRdude 7y ago
> TL;DR: .... Science (a famous journal) refused to publish the null replication. They refused to send the null replication out for peer review. I think that is an important difference. The optics make it look more like suppression, rather than a rejection based on quality.

by mLuby 7y ago

tathougies 7y ago

> Agreed, but maybe the issue here is journals shouldn't be prestigious. I understand journals' historical usefulness, but the Internet has made them obsolete. Prestige and historical usefulness are practically synonyms. You're arguing that prestige shouldn't command respect, but this is like arguing against human nature. "Science" should recognize its importance to the world at large and take extra care to publish failures of replications of papers that it reports. The more prestigious the journal, the more carefully they ought to follow this proscription, especially if they wish to maintain their prestige.

dmix 7y ago
Agreed, the whole narrative of the internet democratizing things has been largely overstated and poorly supported. So many of the existing social and industry hierarchies were merely replicated on the Internet. As we see with all the popular print newspapers and magazines often being equally or more successfully online. Maybe there were hierarchies for a reason and they were a good thing. Rather it's about building the better hierarchies rather than replacing them entirely with some academic idealistic pipedream (ditto for markets in economics).
- Dowwie 7y ago
  Widespread adoption of the internet has dramatically changed the world. "Democratization" was an early term used to describe the opportunities of the early internet and it remains ongoing. There have been many great collective accomplishments in the last 20 years that are indicative of that democratization.

earenndil 7y ago

> TL;DR: they replicated the famous study about liberals and conservatives reacting differently to threats, finding no difference I think this is a confusing way to word it; it implies that they successfully replicated the original study, and found no difference between their results and the original study. I might say 'they were unable to replicate the famous study about [...]' or 'they attempted to replicated the famous study [...], finding no difference between liberals and conservatives'.

jbay808 7y ago
Wow, English is terrible. You are totally right.
- MaxLeiter 7y ago
  In this particular case I think it's less English's fault and it's due to the improper use of replicate.

CDRdude 7y ago

> TL;DR: .... Science (a famous journal) refused to publish the null replication. They refused to send the null replication out for peer review. I think that is an important difference. The optics make it look more like suppression, rather than a rejection based on quality.