> 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 irrep

> 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...