3 ms·
Put a Number on It! did a piece a while ago going through some psychology pieces that were part of a replication effort. They found that half failed to replica
by Symmetry 7y ago
Put a Number on It! did a piece a while ago going through some psychology pieces that were part of a replication effort. They found that half failed to replicate but that people in a betting market could often tell which ones were going to replicate or not. The author also did a blind test himself and was also able to guess which ones would replicate. He laid out several rules of thumb, most significantly to the article Jacob’s Rule of Anti-Significance: A result with a p-value just above 0.05 could well be true. A result with a p-value just below 0.05 is almost certainly false.
More importantly, p=0.06 means that the researchers are honest. They could have easily p-hacked the results below 0.05 but chose not to. The opposite is true when p=0.049.
https://putanumonit.com/2018/09/07/the-scent-of-bad-psychology/ https://putanumonit.com/2018/09/07/the-scent-of-bad-psycholo...
- WengerPen 7y agoThat is a pretty interesting conclusion, do you know whether his work has been replicated to confirm the outcomes?
- targonca 7y agoYep, it's confirmed with p = 0.049
- UncleMeat 7y agoThis is true in more than just psych. A strategy for systems papers is to select the system that is second on the graphs. The author's results are not trustworthy, but the second place system was usable and ran reasonably well in the hands of somebody other than the original author.
- hadsed 7y agoFor ML practitioners out there, this is a great method for a field also in a replication crisis.