3 ms·
Section V is where he explains why he doesn't believe the results. "I looked through his list of ninety studies for all the ones that were both exact replicati
by anoonmoose 6y ago
Section V is where he explains why he doesn't believe the results.
"I looked through his list of ninety studies for all the ones that were both exact replications and had been peer-reviewed (with one caveat to be mentioned later). I found only seven...Three find large positive effects, two find approximate zero effects, and two find large negative effects. Without doing any calculatin’, this seems pretty darned close to chance for me.
...
That is my best guess at what happened here – a bunch of poor-quality, peer-unreviewed studies that weren’t as exact replications as we would like to believe, all subject to mysterious experimenter effects."
- yters 6y agoWhy would an even proportion of positive to negative be considered chance? If half the entrants won the powerball and half did not, I would not consider that chance.
- anoonmoose 6y agoBecause "large" here is still "very tiny". Large with respect to "p-values" isn't the same as "actually large". Equating the "positive results" to "winning the powerball" is not a fair comparison. If there were Powerball-level results here we wouldn't need further studies to confirm the effect exists.
- yters 6y agoRadin claims in his meta analyses he gets powerball level results, much beyond that in fact. Either these are some quite incompetent and/or deceitful researchers, or they have found something we currently cannot explain.