4 ms·

> But we do believe the basic assumption and premise that leaders should provide more positive than negative feedback is correct Typical social science researc

> But we do believe the basic assumption and premise that leaders should provide more positive than negative feedback is correct Typical social science research, come to the conclusion first and then find data to back it up. There needs to be a reproducibility challenge of the top 100 papers, preferably by scientists on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the authors. We solved this in the hard sciences, I don't get why it's so hard to do it in the social sciences.

ModernMech 4y ago
> preferably by scientists on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the authors What does political affiliation have to do with the scientific method? Are you under the impression that this is done in other sciences?
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Many social scientists lean left and tend to "find" results which coincidentally align with their political viewpoint. If the results are truly reproducible, then someone on the other side of the spectrum should also be able to reproduce it. On the other hand, if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible.
  - aaplok 4y ago
    > if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible. Why not? If indeed there is a bias ib social science then we could expect some conclusions to remain unpublished if they contradict the bias. But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible.
    - ceeplusplus 4y ago
      > But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible The very article we are reading illustrates why published results can be irreproducible and indeed completely made up. The Losada research cited was invalid [1] yet nobody questioned it because it fit their views of how humans should interact (positivity ratio implies some form of constructive criticism, which is often taught in Western schools as the ideal way to give feedback to someone). Any attempt by a sceptic to reproduce it would have realized that the "math" used to model the positivity ratio was wrong. The authors themselves state in the article they still believe the positivity ratio idea even though the Losada research was shown to be egregiously wrong. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-research-now-subject-to-an-expression-of-concern/ https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-rese...
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Most research isn’t reproduced because it’s not economically lucrative for researchers to reproduce research. It’s that simple. If you want scientists to reproduce research, make funding available for that purpose. It has nothing to do with political biases. I mean, if you’re talking about completely made up research then that’s a matter of fraud, not political biases.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Do you have a basis for this assertion that has been studied and reproduced by someone of the opposite political spectrum? I’m sorry but as a scientist, your assertion that we must hear from someone with the opposite political view before we can determine the veracity of some work is just so foreign to me. Must we also hear from creationists on evolution research? Why can’t that stand alone? If some experiment is reproducible it shouldn’t matter the political bias of the person running the study. Moreover how would this even be implemented? The idea of a “political spectrum” is just a rule of thumb at best, and a dangerous misleading heuristic at worst. According to you, how would we identify an author’s political bias? Force them to self identify or take some sort of certified test? Will we divide all of our departments between liberals and conservatives? Right now I don’t know the political affiliation of any of my colleagues, and they don’t know mine. Are you suggesting we should bring our politics explicitly into our research? I mean… have you even thought any of this through?
- Jensson 4y ago
  People with similar biases will overlook similar things, you need people with different biases to properly review scientific results, and it becomes more important the closer the topic is to politics.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Sure every person has all kinds of biases. The point of being a good researcher is to try and put those aside. Should we also only accept reproducibility studies from women on papers by men? Should we need to hear from Chinese or European researchers before American research is considered valid? Must we also take into account the race, ethnicity, and religion of all authors as well? What if a conservative and liberal publish research together, is their research bias free by definition? What mixture of political biases get to reproduce such research in a way you consider free from bias? I’m sorry the entire idea just seems untenable.

ModernMech 4y ago

> preferably by scientists on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the authors What does political affiliation have to do with the scientific method? Are you under the impression that this is done in other sciences?

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Many social scientists lean left and tend to "find" results which coincidentally align with their political viewpoint. If the results are truly reproducible, then someone on the other side of the spectrum should also be able to reproduce it. On the other hand, if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible.
- aaplok 4y ago
  > if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible. Why not? If indeed there is a bias ib social science then we could expect some conclusions to remain unpublished if they contradict the bias. But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    > But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible The very article we are reading illustrates why published results can be irreproducible and indeed completely made up. The Losada research cited was invalid [1] yet nobody questioned it because it fit their views of how humans should interact (positivity ratio implies some form of constructive criticism, which is often taught in Western schools as the ideal way to give feedback to someone). Any attempt by a sceptic to reproduce it would have realized that the "math" used to model the positivity ratio was wrong. The authors themselves state in the article they still believe the positivity ratio idea even though the Losada research was shown to be egregiously wrong. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-research-now-subject-to-an-expression-of-concern/ https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-rese...
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Most research isn’t reproduced because it’s not economically lucrative for researchers to reproduce research. It’s that simple. If you want scientists to reproduce research, make funding available for that purpose. It has nothing to do with political biases. I mean, if you’re talking about completely made up research then that’s a matter of fraud, not political biases.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Do you have a basis for this assertion that has been studied and reproduced by someone of the opposite political spectrum? I’m sorry but as a scientist, your assertion that we must hear from someone with the opposite political view before we can determine the veracity of some work is just so foreign to me. Must we also hear from creationists on evolution research? Why can’t that stand alone? If some experiment is reproducible it shouldn’t matter the political bias of the person running the study. Moreover how would this even be implemented? The idea of a “political spectrum” is just a rule of thumb at best, and a dangerous misleading heuristic at worst. According to you, how would we identify an author’s political bias? Force them to self identify or take some sort of certified test? Will we divide all of our departments between liberals and conservatives? Right now I don’t know the political affiliation of any of my colleagues, and they don’t know mine. Are you suggesting we should bring our politics explicitly into our research? I mean… have you even thought any of this through?
Jensson 4y ago
People with similar biases will overlook similar things, you need people with different biases to properly review scientific results, and it becomes more important the closer the topic is to politics.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Sure every person has all kinds of biases. The point of being a good researcher is to try and put those aside. Should we also only accept reproducibility studies from women on papers by men? Should we need to hear from Chinese or European researchers before American research is considered valid? Must we also take into account the race, ethnicity, and religion of all authors as well? What if a conservative and liberal publish research together, is their research bias free by definition? What mixture of political biases get to reproduce such research in a way you consider free from bias? I’m sorry the entire idea just seems untenable.