3 ms·

Psychological science is now thoroughly privatized. Don't read papers if this subject is of interest to your, look al big tech, ad tech, troll factories, influe

by brnt 5y ago

Psychological science is now thoroughly privatized. Don't read papers if this subject is of interest to your, look al big tech, ad tech, troll factories, influencer science, media consolidation, for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw). Academics are thoroughly out of the loop on this one, as are we all incidentally.

CactusOnFire 5y ago
I became a Data Scientist because in 3rd year, I found the OKCupid data blog and realized their research had methodological soundness these "20 undergraduate lab students forced to be there" research never would. You trade 'shot-in-the-dark lab experiments' for 'a clear and obvious agenda'. The trick is to just make sure the agenda isn't morally reprehensible.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  more than one third of the entire world population believes that OKCupid is "morally reprehensible" (!)
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    This is an interesting statement. Do you have links to something more I can read? Who thinks dating sites are morally reprehensible?
  - burnte 5y ago
    Religious biases don't count as valid moral objections. Religion has a strong negative effect on critical thinking skills (1, 2). If you dogs/pigs/shellfish/mixed-fabrics are inherently unclean or that women are property, your objections to a dating website are probably not going to have seriousl scientific ramifications. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742220/ 2. https://www.google.com/search?q=Religion+has+a+strong+negative+effect+on+critical+thinking+skills https://www.google.com/search?q=Religion+has+a+strong+negati...
    - mellavora 5y ago
      Ok, I have some reason to agree with you, but if we rule out religion as a valid basis for morality, what do you suggest we replace it with?
      - NortySpock 5y ago
        Act or Rule Utilitarianism.
      - trutannus 5y ago
        There's a pile of different ethical frameworks. So likely work with a few of them and factor them all in when making decisions.
      - burnte 5y ago
        I'm not even sayign religion can't be a basis for morality, I'm just saying religious BIASES aren't valid arguments. Don't kill/murder/steal, those are great, clear lines about interacting with others. There's a clear benefit to all for those rules. Don't turn on your oven on saturdays, pet dogs, or cut your beard, those aren't widely applicable.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
handrous 5y ago
> for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw). Any getting-started pointers for this (or your other suggestions)?
- brnt 5y ago
  A useful keyword is psychographics, but you'll find that much research is privatized (comes from media/software companies), and that some of the meat seems to be not publicized. Which makes sense, it's what gives them an edge over the competition. The Cambridge Analytica dossier is of course a good way to find references. In terms of the why, and the who's paying, Dark Money (Mayer) and Democracy in Chains (MacLean) touch on it: psychographics is huge for anyone doing manipulation, not just commercial ads, also political ones. Probably even moreso.

by brnt 5y ago

CactusOnFire 5y ago

I became a Data Scientist because in 3rd year, I found the OKCupid data blog and realized their research had methodological soundness these "20 undergraduate lab students forced to be there" research never would. You trade 'shot-in-the-dark lab experiments' for 'a clear and obvious agenda'. The trick is to just make sure the agenda isn't morally reprehensible.

mistrial9 5y ago
more than one third of the entire world population believes that OKCupid is "morally reprehensible" (!)
- stickfigure 5y ago
  This is an interesting statement. Do you have links to something more I can read? Who thinks dating sites are morally reprehensible?
- burnte 5y ago
  Religious biases don't count as valid moral objections. Religion has a strong negative effect on critical thinking skills (1, 2). If you dogs/pigs/shellfish/mixed-fabrics are inherently unclean or that women are property, your objections to a dating website are probably not going to have seriousl scientific ramifications. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742220/ 2. https://www.google.com/search?q=Religion+has+a+strong+negative+effect+on+critical+thinking+skills https://www.google.com/search?q=Religion+has+a+strong+negati...
  - mellavora 5y ago
    Ok, I have some reason to agree with you, but if we rule out religion as a valid basis for morality, what do you suggest we replace it with?
    - NortySpock 5y ago
      Act or Rule Utilitarianism.
    - trutannus 5y ago
      There's a pile of different ethical frameworks. So likely work with a few of them and factor them all in when making decisions.
    - burnte 5y ago
      I'm not even sayign religion can't be a basis for morality, I'm just saying religious BIASES aren't valid arguments. Don't kill/murder/steal, those are great, clear lines about interacting with others. There's a clear benefit to all for those rules. Don't turn on your oven on saturdays, pet dogs, or cut your beard, those aren't widely applicable.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

handrous 5y ago

> for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw). Any getting-started pointers for this (or your other suggestions)?

brnt 5y ago
A useful keyword is psychographics, but you'll find that much research is privatized (comes from media/software companies), and that some of the meat seems to be not publicized. Which makes sense, it's what gives them an edge over the competition. The Cambridge Analytica dossier is of course a good way to find references. In terms of the why, and the who's paying, Dark Money (Mayer) and Democracy in Chains (MacLean) touch on it: psychographics is huge for anyone doing manipulation, not just commercial ads, also political ones. Probably even moreso.