3 ms·

I don't think that's "clear" at all. Even the blog link doesn't come to that conclusion.

sodality2 5y ago
I think "We ran 1 million simulations to determine how often this level of similarity could emerge just by chance. Under the most generous assumptions imaginable, it didn’t happen once." is pretty damning.
- superjan 5y ago
  Oh, somebody made it up. It’s just not proven that he was the one who made it up. It could be someone at the insurance company, or some student paid to type it in. Less likely perhaps, but not impossible.
jsnell 5y ago
The trail of the data goes cold at Ariely. He is refusing to tell who supposedly gave him the data, and can't keep his story straight. He is also marked as the creator of the Excel file in the metadata [0]. If he received the data in Excel format, he wouldn't be the creator. If he received it in some other format. It's obvious that Ariely is dirty, and I'd bet we'll hear of other similar cases soon enough from other studies that he was involved in. Cheaters don't cheat just once. [0] https://datacolada.org/98#footnote_13_6142 https://datacolada.org/98#footnote_13_6142
- mzs 5y ago
  from the submitted article: >And this is not the first time questions have been raised about Ariely’s research in particular. In a famous 2008 study, he claimed that prompting people to recall the Ten Commandments before a test cuts down on cheating, but an outside team later failed to replicate the effect. An editor’s note was added to a 2004 study of his last month when other researchers raised concerns about statistical discrepancies, and Ariely did not have the original data to cross-check against. And in 2010, Ariely told NPR that dentists often disagree on whether X-rays show a cavity, citing Delta Dental insurance as his source. He later walked back that claim when the company said it could not have shared that information with him because it did not collect it. from "Dan Ariely was suspended from research at MIT after conducting unauthorized experiment with human subjects" ^ >We talked to sources at MIT, who said that the way in which the placebo experiment was conducted led to dispute and eventually to Ariely's departure. Sources familiar with the study said that Ariely did not request the necessary permissions from the IRB (Institutional Review Board) of MIT that is called CUEHUS, and did not fulfill the required protocols to conduct the experiment, which included administration of electric shocks to 80 participants, and administration of cheaper or more expensive placebo medications. >When this was discovered after one of the participants complained, the ethics committee reached out to Ariely for an explanation. Emails that have come to our attention reveal that Ariely's reply was amused in tone, indicating he had a general protocol for this type of experiment of this type called "electric shocks", and he followed them. ^ https://www.ha-makom.co.il/post-tomer-dan-ariely-mit-suspention/ https://www.ha-makom.co.il/post-tomer-dan-ariely-mit-suspent...

I think "We ran 1 million simulations to determine how often this level of similarity could emerge just by chance. Under the most generous assumptions imaginable, it didn’t happen once." is pretty damning.

superjan 5y ago
Oh, somebody made it up. It’s just not proven that he was the one who made it up. It could be someone at the insurance company, or some student paid to type it in. Less likely perhaps, but not impossible.

jsnell 5y ago

The trail of the data goes cold at Ariely. He is refusing to tell who supposedly gave him the data, and can't keep his story straight. He is also marked as the creator of the Excel file in the metadata [0]. If he received the data in Excel format, he wouldn't be the creator. If he received it in some other format. It's obvious that Ariely is dirty, and I'd bet we'll hear of other similar cases soon enough from other studies that he was involved in. Cheaters don't cheat just once. [0] https://datacolada.org/98#footnote_13_6142 https://datacolada.org/98#footnote_13_6142

mzs 5y ago
from the submitted article: >And this is not the first time questions have been raised about Ariely’s research in particular. In a famous 2008 study, he claimed that prompting people to recall the Ten Commandments before a test cuts down on cheating, but an outside team later failed to replicate the effect. An editor’s note was added to a 2004 study of his last month when other researchers raised concerns about statistical discrepancies, and Ariely did not have the original data to cross-check against. And in 2010, Ariely told NPR that dentists often disagree on whether X-rays show a cavity, citing Delta Dental insurance as his source. He later walked back that claim when the company said it could not have shared that information with him because it did not collect it. from "Dan Ariely was suspended from research at MIT after conducting unauthorized experiment with human subjects" ^ >We talked to sources at MIT, who said that the way in which the placebo experiment was conducted led to dispute and eventually to Ariely's departure. Sources familiar with the study said that Ariely did not request the necessary permissions from the IRB (Institutional Review Board) of MIT that is called CUEHUS, and did not fulfill the required protocols to conduct the experiment, which included administration of electric shocks to 80 participants, and administration of cheaper or more expensive placebo medications. >When this was discovered after one of the participants complained, the ethics committee reached out to Ariely for an explanation. Emails that have come to our attention reveal that Ariely's reply was amused in tone, indicating he had a general protocol for this type of experiment of this type called "electric shocks", and he followed them. ^ https://www.ha-makom.co.il/post-tomer-dan-ariely-mit-suspention/ https://www.ha-makom.co.il/post-tomer-dan-ariely-mit-suspent...