4 ms·

Yeah, these kind of studies are grabbed up by the media and spread uncritically all the time. e.g., 'x % of CEOs are functional sociopaths' '<Members of ideo

Yeah, these kind of studies are grabbed up by the media and spread uncritically all the time. e.g., 'x % of CEOs are functional sociopaths' '<Members of ideology I don't like> have this negative trait' '<Members of ideology I identify with> have this positive trait' Call me cynical, but I am really dubious of these kinds of stories. edit, I am not saying anything about the research, I am saying something about the narratives and social media chatter that results from these kinds of stories, often with out any criticism if they fit our preconceptions.

tokai 5y ago
What a baffling shallow dismissal. The research might be bunk, but basing your critique of it on popular coverage by non-researchers, is not cynical at all. Its make-believe.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  This type of psychological research is pseduoscientific -- and results can be produced in any direction one likes. Why didnt the study correlate virtuous-sounding personality traits with being a CEO? (Presumably many exist). And were such a study published, why wouldnt it be printed in the BBC? When an entire field is basically incapable of meeting the basic tenants of science (repoducible, modelling, universal, explanatory, etc.) -- the most salient question is "why is it that we have /these particular/ untruths?"
  - alimw 5y ago
    Well a study linking career success to, say, intelligence is unlikely to make the news because it wouldn't be at all surprising.
  - _jal 5y ago
    So in summary, you don't like people's choice of research topics, you don't like the media, and you want to suggest that certain categories of research are PR conspiracies, but won't quite do so. Does that have it about right?
    - noslenwerdna 5y ago
      Have you heard of the reproducibility crisis in psychology? It seems like the above poster is referring to it
  - tokai 5y ago
    Try rereading my comment. You are writing to some phantom in your head.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  Not sure I follow. Are you saying that the mainstream media has a good enough record of covering science stories without distortion, exaggeration or just plain wrongness to make my cynicism unjustified?

tokai 5y ago

What a baffling shallow dismissal. The research might be bunk, but basing your critique of it on popular coverage by non-researchers, is not cynical at all. Its make-believe.

mjburgess 5y ago
This type of psychological research is pseduoscientific -- and results can be produced in any direction one likes. Why didnt the study correlate virtuous-sounding personality traits with being a CEO? (Presumably many exist). And were such a study published, why wouldnt it be printed in the BBC? When an entire field is basically incapable of meeting the basic tenants of science (repoducible, modelling, universal, explanatory, etc.) -- the most salient question is "why is it that we have /these particular/ untruths?"
- alimw 5y ago
  Well a study linking career success to, say, intelligence is unlikely to make the news because it wouldn't be at all surprising.
- _jal 5y ago
  So in summary, you don't like people's choice of research topics, you don't like the media, and you want to suggest that certain categories of research are PR conspiracies, but won't quite do so. Does that have it about right?
  - noslenwerdna 5y ago
    Have you heard of the reproducibility crisis in psychology? It seems like the above poster is referring to it
- tokai 5y ago
  Try rereading my comment. You are writing to some phantom in your head.
sillyquiet 5y ago
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that the mainstream media has a good enough record of covering science stories without distortion, exaggeration or just plain wrongness to make my cynicism unjustified?