4 ms·

I deal with this on a regular basis in the research world, there is what is a really toxic and dangerous bias towards constructing the positive, i.e., making th

I deal with this on a regular basis in the research world, there is what is a really toxic and dangerous bias towards constructing the positive, i.e., making things seem, appear, and even fabricate outcomes that will be affirming of desired outcomes or other group biases. It is not research, let alone science when you are striking a positive tone, it’s fraud.

curiousllama 6y ago
This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Grant-land is very very often about image and framing. How often are grant administrators interested in pure research and let the chips fall where they may vs getting results that yield happy articles, then more grants?
  - ludamad 6y ago
    Agreed, the bias towards culling negative results is not unique to Google, although the mechanism may be
    - silexia 6y ago
      There is a witch hunt against Google that is politically motivated happening now. If Google is funding its own research, it should be able to look at whatever it wants. Why do we hold Google to a standard that most other companies are far worse at following? The appropriate place for independent critical research is outside of the company itself. Google is actually a pretty well intentioned entity to put out as much self critical research as it does.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Remember, it's all about the "optics". This isn't relegated to science or management - we're seeing it all across society these days. Nuance is dead. If the message cannot be delivered in a 120 character tweet, and cannot self-gratify 50 million teenage viewers with only a superficial understanding of the topic, then it shouldn't be a public position at all. Of course, I'm slightly exaggerating. But the consequence is very real - organizations, whether corporate or scientific, whether public or private have had to drop an iron curtain around their honest nuanced internal strategies in order to avoid the attention of the hyperbolic and outrage-fueled social media world.
- chii 6y ago
  > Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. if a business funds research, they expect the funding to have a positive ROI. Therefore, the business will pressure research towards this, and thus, will inevitably make the research accountable for an outcome. This is why fundamental research should be publicly funded, and publicly available.
mitjak 6y ago
indeed. this just reads like managing PR, as opposed to working with researchers to i don't know, attempt to remove racial bias for instance.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
That isn’t just true in the research world, it’s even worse in the corporate world. Something about human nature where naysayers don’t get much acceptance.
danmaz74 6y ago
From what the article mentions, it looks like the sensitive subjects they worry about are those which can get a company burned at the stake on social media these days. It's not great, but it's un unsurprising effect of the current culture wars.
- nieve 6y ago
  Or annoy the Chinese government, potentially make their self-driving cars project look less perfect, make it a bit too obvious how much location tracking Google is doing, make their home security integration plans not quite so shiny, and so forth. The actual list is very clearly not just about social media, if anything the majority is topics Google has a financial interest in that don't get that much attention on the big networks.
bagacrap 6y ago
bit of slippery cliff you've tripped over there. From "strike a positive tone" to "fabricate outcomes" (data?). The latter is clearly fraud, and qualitatively different from the Google manager's suggestion.

curiousllama 6y ago

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.

tomcam 6y ago
Grant-land is very very often about image and framing. How often are grant administrators interested in pure research and let the chips fall where they may vs getting results that yield happy articles, then more grants?
- ludamad 6y ago
  Agreed, the bias towards culling negative results is not unique to Google, although the mechanism may be
  - silexia 6y ago
    There is a witch hunt against Google that is politically motivated happening now. If Google is funding its own research, it should be able to look at whatever it wants. Why do we hold Google to a standard that most other companies are far worse at following? The appropriate place for independent critical research is outside of the company itself. Google is actually a pretty well intentioned entity to put out as much self critical research as it does.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
Remember, it's all about the "optics". This isn't relegated to science or management - we're seeing it all across society these days. Nuance is dead. If the message cannot be delivered in a 120 character tweet, and cannot self-gratify 50 million teenage viewers with only a superficial understanding of the topic, then it shouldn't be a public position at all. Of course, I'm slightly exaggerating. But the consequence is very real - organizations, whether corporate or scientific, whether public or private have had to drop an iron curtain around their honest nuanced internal strategies in order to avoid the attention of the hyperbolic and outrage-fueled social media world.
chii 6y ago
> Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. if a business funds research, they expect the funding to have a positive ROI. Therefore, the business will pressure research towards this, and thus, will inevitably make the research accountable for an outcome. This is why fundamental research should be publicly funded, and publicly available.

mitjak 6y ago

indeed. this just reads like managing PR, as opposed to working with researchers to i don't know, attempt to remove racial bias for instance.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

That isn’t just true in the research world, it’s even worse in the corporate world. Something about human nature where naysayers don’t get much acceptance.

danmaz74 6y ago

From what the article mentions, it looks like the sensitive subjects they worry about are those which can get a company burned at the stake on social media these days. It's not great, but it's un unsurprising effect of the current culture wars.

nieve 6y ago
Or annoy the Chinese government, potentially make their self-driving cars project look less perfect, make it a bit too obvious how much location tracking Google is doing, make their home security integration plans not quite so shiny, and so forth. The actual list is very clearly not just about social media, if anything the majority is topics Google has a financial interest in that don't get that much attention on the big networks.

bagacrap 6y ago

bit of slippery cliff you've tripped over there. From "strike a positive tone" to "fabricate outcomes" (data?). The latter is clearly fraud, and qualitatively different from the Google manager's suggestion.