3 ms·

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely, author of (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies, later accused of data

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely, author of (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies, later accused of data fraud and academic misconduct.

m463 3y ago
I read his dishonesty book and now I wonder if any of it is actually wrong (although most of it made sense at the time)
- tobinfricke 3y ago
  Is Dan Ariely implicated in any of this? My understanding was that he was cleared.
  - atchoo 3y ago
    Sounds like it. Take a look at his wikipedia page. The Gino/Ariely paper that was retracted in 2021 has this to say: > Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely
- taeric 3y ago
  There are few things out there as dangerous as arguments that "make sense." Lots of things can do that, all while being rather flawed. I am curious to know more on this one. Odd to see so much pointing fingers happening. I'm guessing that isn't as rare as I would assume it is?
hammock 3y ago
Also Jonah Lehrer, author of pop science books Imagine and How We Decide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Lehrer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Lehrer
- renewiltord 3y ago
  This guy is featured in the So You've Been Publicly Shamed book, and it definitely seemed like he was pilloried pretty hard. It is interesting, though, which journalists get tarred and feathered and which ones are celebrated. Certainly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak have massive journalistic ethical errors: the former fabricating news for the US Government and the latter blowing a CIA agent's cover (the Plame Affair). Yet, they are celebrated journalists. It seems that you have to: - not be hypocritical (it is a greater sin to preach and sin; than simply to sin) - be younger (established powerhouses can steamroll these accusations) And to GP: thank you! The number of times Dan Ariely is involved in this data fabrication stuff does make the whole thing seem a bit fishy. At best, he is bad at trusting people, which makes any claims he makes low-coefficient since they could be from data from fabricators.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Is Miller still a celebrated journalist? I had her down mentally as "noted fraud". Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like she's never done real news again, and has spent her time on what I think of as the "wingnut welfare circuit". And the reactions to her memoir suggest that she's never been welcomed back into the profession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Memoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Memoir
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      It's interesting thar Miller left NYT in 2008, the year Obama won the Presidency, and NYT shifted from (right wing) Establishment to (left wing Establishment) to stay aligned with the President.
    - eduction 3y ago
      She is neither celebrated nor an outright fraud. She was disgraced because she reported inaccurate claims (on WMDs in Iraq) from government intelligence sources. Specifically she reported them without sufficient skepticism — without checking the sourcing of the claims (I.e. asking questions like “how did the CIA acquire this intelligence”) or giving sufficient credence and attention to counter claims. Although this is considered bad practice, it is not considered fraudulent. She was indeed takling to highly placed government sources and had reason to believe they were credible. My opinion: Although what she did was rightly viewed, eventually, as journalistic malpractice, she was clearly pleasing her editors who routinely moved her stories to the front page. These editors also failed to demand skepticism and wider investigation, and while at least one was pushed out, the institution of the NY Times remained credulous about government claims. I routinely see stories where they uncritically repeat government claims — especially where classified intelligence is involved and especially relating to military operations. Therefore I believe Miller is also something of a scapegoat.
sgerenser 3y ago
Previous HN discussion about Dan Ariely’s discredited paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely, author of (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies, later accused of data fraud and academic misconduct.

m463 3y ago

I read his dishonesty book and now I wonder if any of it is actually wrong (although most of it made sense at the time)

tobinfricke 3y ago
Is Dan Ariely implicated in any of this? My understanding was that he was cleared.
- atchoo 3y ago
  Sounds like it. Take a look at his wikipedia page. The Gino/Ariely paper that was retracted in 2021 has this to say: > Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely
taeric 3y ago
There are few things out there as dangerous as arguments that "make sense." Lots of things can do that, all while being rather flawed. I am curious to know more on this one. Odd to see so much pointing fingers happening. I'm guessing that isn't as rare as I would assume it is?

hammock 3y ago

Also Jonah Lehrer, author of pop science books Imagine and How We Decide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Lehrer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Lehrer

renewiltord 3y ago
This guy is featured in the So You've Been Publicly Shamed book, and it definitely seemed like he was pilloried pretty hard. It is interesting, though, which journalists get tarred and feathered and which ones are celebrated. Certainly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak have massive journalistic ethical errors: the former fabricating news for the US Government and the latter blowing a CIA agent's cover (the Plame Affair). Yet, they are celebrated journalists. It seems that you have to: - not be hypocritical (it is a greater sin to preach and sin; than simply to sin) - be younger (established powerhouses can steamroll these accusations) And to GP: thank you! The number of times Dan Ariely is involved in this data fabrication stuff does make the whole thing seem a bit fishy. At best, he is bad at trusting people, which makes any claims he makes low-coefficient since they could be from data from fabricators.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Is Miller still a celebrated journalist? I had her down mentally as "noted fraud". Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like she's never done real news again, and has spent her time on what I think of as the "wingnut welfare circuit". And the reactions to her memoir suggest that she's never been welcomed back into the profession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Memoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Memoir
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    It's interesting thar Miller left NYT in 2008, the year Obama won the Presidency, and NYT shifted from (right wing) Establishment to (left wing Establishment) to stay aligned with the President.
  - eduction 3y ago
    She is neither celebrated nor an outright fraud. She was disgraced because she reported inaccurate claims (on WMDs in Iraq) from government intelligence sources. Specifically she reported them without sufficient skepticism — without checking the sourcing of the claims (I.e. asking questions like “how did the CIA acquire this intelligence”) or giving sufficient credence and attention to counter claims. Although this is considered bad practice, it is not considered fraudulent. She was indeed takling to highly placed government sources and had reason to believe they were credible. My opinion: Although what she did was rightly viewed, eventually, as journalistic malpractice, she was clearly pleasing her editors who routinely moved her stories to the front page. These editors also failed to demand skepticism and wider investigation, and while at least one was pushed out, the institution of the NY Times remained credulous about government claims. I routinely see stories where they uncritically repeat government claims — especially where classified intelligence is involved and especially relating to military operations. Therefore I believe Miller is also something of a scapegoat.

sgerenser 3y ago

Previous HN discussion about Dan Ariely’s discredited paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642