3 ms·

What's weird is that this blog post is really just expanding on the 2020 study by the original authors which says that the original data is unreplicatable. And

What's weird is that this blog post is really just expanding on the 2020 study by the original authors which says that the original data is unreplicatable. And provides the original data. The original authors probably should have retracted the 2012 paper in 2020. That was a mistake not to do that. Which leads to this. This blog article is just science at work. You have a study that says X. Then people try to replicate it, and can't. And in this case, the original authors all come out and say "it seems this conclusion was wrong". Kudos for figuring out why the data can't be replicated. But it was the second 2020 study that gave them the clues, not the 2012 one.

DominikPeters 5y ago
Not replicable is very different from “the data were made up using a random number generator”.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> And in this case, the original authors all come out and say "it seems this conclusion was wrong". Well, not really. They published a paper with that conclusion. But they were happy to lie about it elsewhere. Compare the discussion at https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-in-tedhemia-noted-study-in-psychology-first-fails-to-replicate-but-is-still-promoted-by-npr-then-crumbles-with-striking-evidence-of-data-fraud/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-... : > Ariely is the author of the 2012 book, “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone—Especially Ourselves.” A quick google search finds him featured in a recent Freakonomics radio show called, “Is Everybody Cheating These Days?”, and a 2020 NPR segment in which he says, “One of the frightening conclusions we have is that what separates honest people from not-honest people is not necessarily character, it’s opportunity . . . the surprising thing for a rational economist would be: why don’t we cheat more?” > But . . . wait a minute! The NPR segment, dated 17 Feb 2020, states: >> That’s why Ariely describes honesty as something of a state of mind. He thinks the IRS should have people sign a pledge committing to be honest when they start working on their taxes, not when they’re done. Setting the stage for honesty is more effective than asking someone after the fact whether or not they lied. > And that last sentence links directly to the 2012 paper—indeed, it links to a copy of the paper sitting at Ariely’s website. But the new paper with the failed replications, “Signing at the beginning versus at the end does not decrease dishonesty,” by Kristal Whillans, Bazerman, Gino, Shu, Mazar, and Ariely, is dated 31 Mar 2020, and it was sent to the journal in mid-2019 > Ariely, as a coauthor of this article, had to have known for at least half a year before the NPR story that this finding didn’t replicate. But in that NPR interview he wasn’t able to spare even a moment to share this information with the credulous reporter? This seems bad, even aside from any fraud. (emphasis original)
- DominikPeters 5y ago
  I’ve seen a tweet by an NPR journalist saying the interview happened in 2017 and was rebroadcast in 2020. Sorry no link.

DominikPeters 5y ago

Not replicable is very different from “the data were made up using a random number generator”.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> And in this case, the original authors all come out and say "it seems this conclusion was wrong". Well, not really. They published a paper with that conclusion. But they were happy to lie about it elsewhere. Compare the discussion at https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-in-tedhemia-noted-study-in-psychology-first-fails-to-replicate-but-is-still-promoted-by-npr-then-crumbles-with-striking-evidence-of-data-fraud/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-... : > Ariely is the author of the 2012 book, “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone—Especially Ourselves.” A quick google search finds him featured in a recent Freakonomics radio show called, “Is Everybody Cheating These Days?”, and a 2020 NPR segment in which he says, “One of the frightening conclusions we have is that what separates honest people from not-honest people is not necessarily character, it’s opportunity . . . the surprising thing for a rational economist would be: why don’t we cheat more?” > But . . . wait a minute! The NPR segment, dated 17 Feb 2020, states: >> That’s why Ariely describes honesty as something of a state of mind. He thinks the IRS should have people sign a pledge committing to be honest when they start working on their taxes, not when they’re done. Setting the stage for honesty is more effective than asking someone after the fact whether or not they lied. > And that last sentence links directly to the 2012 paper—indeed, it links to a copy of the paper sitting at Ariely’s website. But the new paper with the failed replications, “Signing at the beginning versus at the end does not decrease dishonesty,” by Kristal Whillans, Bazerman, Gino, Shu, Mazar, and Ariely, is dated 31 Mar 2020, and it was sent to the journal in mid-2019 > Ariely, as a coauthor of this article, had to have known for at least half a year before the NPR story that this finding didn’t replicate. But in that NPR interview he wasn’t able to spare even a moment to share this information with the credulous reporter? This seems bad, even aside from any fraud. (emphasis original)

DominikPeters 5y ago
I’ve seen a tweet by an NPR journalist saying the interview happened in 2017 and was rebroadcast in 2020. Sorry no link.