4 ms·

Take what you said and apply the same logic to privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. You are armchair quarterbacking and speaking beyond your expertise, which is fi

Take what you said and apply the same logic to privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. You are armchair quarterbacking and speaking beyond your expertise, which is fine, but the claim you make is too strong for the supposed evidence you mention. We'd probably all agree that's worth keeping an eye on your own credulity. That applies both to believing the scientists themselves and to believing critics that the science is overall bunk.

mannerheim 4y ago
> That applies both to believing the scientists themselves I believe Feynman when it comes to psychology.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Are you sure? "'I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned..." This is not a wholesale dismissal of the entire domain. That so many people interpret it that way is a psychological phenomenon in itself.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    'Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell. I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this—I don’t remember it in detail, but it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do, A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1935 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.' Judging by the replication crisis in psychology, not much has changed since Feynman's day.
    - thereticent 4y ago
      I have nothing against you personally, but you have proved your own ignorance. I stand by my original comment. It has never been acceptable in psychology or any other scientific discipline not to include a control condition in an experiment. You may not know that many statistical tests were developed by psychologists, and nearly all early development of statistical testing was done by by social scientists of all kinds. Same tests still used by data scientists today. You seriously think that because Feynman happened to advise a psychology student with a poor adviser in 1935, that an indictment of the science 70-90 years later, that was then thoroughly embraced and prioritized by the entire discipline, even though the crisis was mostly applicable to a sub-field (social psychology), still discredits that entire area of science? You're certain of that, even though you aren't in that discipline and have no professional responsibility to maintain that expertise? Either way, rethink your standard for certainty. This whole jack-of-all-trades but also an expert-at-all-trades nonsense has to stop.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Why has the Stanford Prison Experiment been written about uncritically in psychology textbooks for decades? I am not an expert in astrology either, but I am certain it is bunk.
        thereticent 4y ago
        It has. You haven't read recent psychology textbooks. The biggest critics of Zimbardo (and Milgram) were and are psychologists. Those ethical issues (which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience) helped psychology and social science develop immensely. Anyone can double-check the assertions we are both making. What is your deal exactly?
        mannerheim 4y ago
        > which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience SPE was garbage science and all attempts to replicate the results failed. Your deflection of 'ethical issues' underscores the problem with psychology when you ignore the fact that a hallmark study in the field was rigged by the experimenter to get the results he wanted. As for textbooks: > Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), one of the most famous studies in psychology, is discussed in most introductory textbooks. The present study is concerned with the nature of this coverage, given that there have been myriad criticisms, especially recently, of the SPE. These criticisms concern both Zimbardo’s situationist explanation of the outcome and the study’s methodology, such as the presence of strong demand characteristics. Thirteen contemporary introductory textbooks were analyzed for their coverage of the SPE and the ensuing criticisms of it. Eleven of these texts discussed the SPE, but only six even mentioned any of the criticisms. Possible explanations for such coverage and a plan to incorporate more accurate coverage within the discussion of research methods are offered. > ... > Of the 11 texts, 5 did not include any criticism of the SPE, and the other 6 provided very minimal discussions of such criticism. One text included a sentence questioning the ecological validity of the SPE results but did not provide a reference. Three texts briefly discussed ethical questions created by the SPE, such as the question of whether the ethical costs of the SPE outweighed its scientific gains but did not provide references. One of these texts also stated that many researchers have challenged the legitimacy of the SPE, which would seem to be referring to the recent criticisms of the SPE, but no references were provided. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628314537968 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628314537968
monero-xmr 4y ago
[dead]
edgyquant 4y ago
>Take what you said and apply the same logic to privacy-focused cryptocurrencies Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Those have mostly been used as Ponzi schemes or hobbyist toys that extract wealth from those who don’t have it to lose
- thereticent 4y ago
  No, not a gotcha. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It was an invitation to a perspective shift. My aging mother lost her retirement savings to crypto "investing" despite my attempts to dissuade her for a few years. I do think that privacy-focused cryptocurrency is a legitimately worthwhile area of study/development even though the current industry is beyond a dumpster fire. But the people who are serious about it as an area of inquiry are going to stick around and use the mistakes of the past to improve. The people in it only to make a quick buck or billions probably won't. As with nearly everything, there's more nuance involved than armchair critics tend to appreciate.

mannerheim 4y ago

> That applies both to believing the scientists themselves I believe Feynman when it comes to psychology.

mistermann 4y ago
Are you sure? "'I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned..." This is not a wholesale dismissal of the entire domain. That so many people interpret it that way is a psychological phenomenon in itself.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  'Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell. I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this—I don’t remember it in detail, but it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do, A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1935 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.' Judging by the replication crisis in psychology, not much has changed since Feynman's day.
  - thereticent 4y ago
    I have nothing against you personally, but you have proved your own ignorance. I stand by my original comment. It has never been acceptable in psychology or any other scientific discipline not to include a control condition in an experiment. You may not know that many statistical tests were developed by psychologists, and nearly all early development of statistical testing was done by by social scientists of all kinds. Same tests still used by data scientists today. You seriously think that because Feynman happened to advise a psychology student with a poor adviser in 1935, that an indictment of the science 70-90 years later, that was then thoroughly embraced and prioritized by the entire discipline, even though the crisis was mostly applicable to a sub-field (social psychology), still discredits that entire area of science? You're certain of that, even though you aren't in that discipline and have no professional responsibility to maintain that expertise? Either way, rethink your standard for certainty. This whole jack-of-all-trades but also an expert-at-all-trades nonsense has to stop.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Why has the Stanford Prison Experiment been written about uncritically in psychology textbooks for decades? I am not an expert in astrology either, but I am certain it is bunk.
      - thereticent 4y ago
        It has. You haven't read recent psychology textbooks. The biggest critics of Zimbardo (and Milgram) were and are psychologists. Those ethical issues (which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience) helped psychology and social science develop immensely. Anyone can double-check the assertions we are both making. What is your deal exactly?
        mannerheim 4y ago
        > which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience SPE was garbage science and all attempts to replicate the results failed. Your deflection of 'ethical issues' underscores the problem with psychology when you ignore the fact that a hallmark study in the field was rigged by the experimenter to get the results he wanted. As for textbooks: > Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), one of the most famous studies in psychology, is discussed in most introductory textbooks. The present study is concerned with the nature of this coverage, given that there have been myriad criticisms, especially recently, of the SPE. These criticisms concern both Zimbardo’s situationist explanation of the outcome and the study’s methodology, such as the presence of strong demand characteristics. Thirteen contemporary introductory textbooks were analyzed for their coverage of the SPE and the ensuing criticisms of it. Eleven of these texts discussed the SPE, but only six even mentioned any of the criticisms. Possible explanations for such coverage and a plan to incorporate more accurate coverage within the discussion of research methods are offered. > ... > Of the 11 texts, 5 did not include any criticism of the SPE, and the other 6 provided very minimal discussions of such criticism. One text included a sentence questioning the ecological validity of the SPE results but did not provide a reference. Three texts briefly discussed ethical questions created by the SPE, such as the question of whether the ethical costs of the SPE outweighed its scientific gains but did not provide references. One of these texts also stated that many researchers have challenged the legitimacy of the SPE, which would seem to be referring to the recent criticisms of the SPE, but no references were provided. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628314537968 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628314537968

monero-xmr 4y ago

[dead]

edgyquant 4y ago

>Take what you said and apply the same logic to privacy-focused cryptocurrencies Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Those have mostly been used as Ponzi schemes or hobbyist toys that extract wealth from those who don’t have it to lose

thereticent 4y ago
No, not a gotcha. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It was an invitation to a perspective shift. My aging mother lost her retirement savings to crypto "investing" despite my attempts to dissuade her for a few years. I do think that privacy-focused cryptocurrency is a legitimately worthwhile area of study/development even though the current industry is beyond a dumpster fire. But the people who are serious about it as an area of inquiry are going to stick around and use the mistakes of the past to improve. The people in it only to make a quick buck or billions probably won't. As with nearly everything, there's more nuance involved than armchair critics tend to appreciate.