6 ms·

At least for the insurance case it's crystal clear he fabricated the data himself. He is the only person who touched the data in the research team, by the admis

by jsnell 3y ago

At least for the insurance case it's crystal clear he fabricated the data himself. He is the only person who touched the data in the research team, by the admission of everyone involved. He is the only person with a motive; why would the insurance company fake data? It's also clear that the data fabrication happened in Excel (based on styling differences that wouldn't pass through other formats) and the Excel metadata has Ariely as the creator of the file. If the data had been fabricated by the insurance company as an Excel file, they'd show up as the creators. If it had been fabricated by them as a e.g. a CSV and Ariely just imported it to Excel, it wouldn't show the inconsistent styling.

WaitWaitWha 3y ago
Just to be pedantic (I am not contesting that this individual was involved in malfeasance or not, just that the enumerated proofs are insufficient at best) - > If the data had been fabricated by the insurance company as an Excel file, they'd show up as the creators. Digital forensics does not work this way. It is very rare when many digital evidence line up and imply that an actual person did or did not do something in the digital realm. A user account that shows up in an Excel file is absolutely insufficient to tie a person to the keyboard. > it wouldn't show the inconsistent styling. This is also inconsistent how digital forensics works. It can imply that something changed, but nothing about who, when, and why. It could have been an incorrectly propagated filter, or coloring, template, or functions.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Yes, of course I'm not going to retype thousands of words of somebody else's investigation[0] into a HN comment. It's a summary. > This is also inconsistent how digital forensics works. It can imply that something changed, but nothing about who, when, and why. It could have been an incorrectly propagated filter, or coloring, template, or functions. No, sorry, I don't agree. It shows the "when" of the data fabrication, i.e. after the data was imported to Excel not before. The nature of the styling inconsistencies shows the "why", since it shows that the data was duplicated and one half of the duplicates was manipulated. Half the data was in one font, half in the other, and the two sets of data can be matched with each other. It also shows the "who" in combination with the metadata, due to the chain of reasoning in my previous message, since it shows that the data fabrication happened after the import to Excel and we know Ariely is the person who did that import. [0] https://datacolada.org/98 https://datacolada.org/98
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Taking a look at the conclusion in the link you provide, it states: > it is impossible to tell from the data who fabricated it. But because the fourth author has made it clear to us that he was the only author in touch with the insurance company, there are three logical possibilities: the fourth author himself, someone in the fourth author's lab, or someone at the insurance company. So you seem to be much more confident about it only being one possibility, when the link explicity provides three possibilities.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Yes, the article lists three theoretical possibilities. I expect the datacolada authors are not stating how likely they think each of those theoretical possibilities is, for obvious reasons. I don't feel under such constraints. One of those logical possibilities can be excluded entirely thanks to everyone involved agreeing that Ariely was the only person in contact with the company and handling the data ingestion. It could not have been anybody else in the lab. The other theory is beyond absurd. Not only did the insurance company fabricate the data, but they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication. Theories like your "slacking off data entry clerk" just don't make sense there. Now, maybe if Ariely could provide even a shred of evidence for this being the data he received, I could change my mind. But he can't produce the file he received from the company. He can't tell who at the company sent it to him. The trail just runs cold at Ariely.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        > they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication He'd already done lab experiments that showed the effect he thought existed, and it's easy to imagine an associate who actually fabricated the data already knew what he was looking to confirm. Again, I'm not saying I think he's guilty or not. I'm just saying that from everything I've read so far, it seems plausible it was sloppiness and not checking data for signs of manipulation. That this sloppiness isn't "beyond absurd", but rather more like the classic "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (or by an overworked/overambitious academic).
axus 3y ago
I've got other people's names and dates in some of my Office documents metadata. Sometimes it's easier to wipe all but the first two pages out and go from there, than to keep track of other people's templates. Clearly he had control over the file, but I wouldn't put too much weight on the metadata when there's plenty of other evidence.
crazygringo 3y ago
> why would the insurance company fake data? It's easy to imagine reasons. A lazy assistant who's supposed to go through 13,488 filled-out forms decides to count 1,000 of them and then fabricate the rest so they can spend the week watching soccer online instead? Or an employee lost the data on which form results were associated with which condition, and they might get fired or not get promoted if caught, so they made it up? And so forth. And metadata as you've described it doesn't sem like a smoking gun either. It's easy enough to imagine Ariely created an otherwise empty Excel sheet in the column format he wanted them to insert data into, e-mailed it to them, and got it back with their results. Or he just copied their Excel results into a spreadsheet of his own that already had other tabs, or similar. I'm not saying Ariely didn't do it or did do it, I'm just wondering if there's an actual smoking gun here, or if it's accusations but there isn't enough evidence to actually know.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  to some degree it's not relevant -- the data is bunk, and Dan A flogged it hard. He also was the only one handling it, so if the data is bad then the responsibility falls to him regardless, both as the handler, as well as the head of the investigation. He either deliberately faked it, or got garbage data and didn't realize it when, now, plenty of others have.

by jsnell 3y ago

WaitWaitWha 3y ago

Just to be pedantic (I am not contesting that this individual was involved in malfeasance or not, just that the enumerated proofs are insufficient at best) - > If the data had been fabricated by the insurance company as an Excel file, they'd show up as the creators. Digital forensics does not work this way. It is very rare when many digital evidence line up and imply that an actual person did or did not do something in the digital realm. A user account that shows up in an Excel file is absolutely insufficient to tie a person to the keyboard. > it wouldn't show the inconsistent styling. This is also inconsistent how digital forensics works. It can imply that something changed, but nothing about who, when, and why. It could have been an incorrectly propagated filter, or coloring, template, or functions.

jsnell 3y ago
Yes, of course I'm not going to retype thousands of words of somebody else's investigation[0] into a HN comment. It's a summary. > This is also inconsistent how digital forensics works. It can imply that something changed, but nothing about who, when, and why. It could have been an incorrectly propagated filter, or coloring, template, or functions. No, sorry, I don't agree. It shows the "when" of the data fabrication, i.e. after the data was imported to Excel not before. The nature of the styling inconsistencies shows the "why", since it shows that the data was duplicated and one half of the duplicates was manipulated. Half the data was in one font, half in the other, and the two sets of data can be matched with each other. It also shows the "who" in combination with the metadata, due to the chain of reasoning in my previous message, since it shows that the data fabrication happened after the import to Excel and we know Ariely is the person who did that import. [0] https://datacolada.org/98 https://datacolada.org/98
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Taking a look at the conclusion in the link you provide, it states: > it is impossible to tell from the data who fabricated it. But because the fourth author has made it clear to us that he was the only author in touch with the insurance company, there are three logical possibilities: the fourth author himself, someone in the fourth author's lab, or someone at the insurance company. So you seem to be much more confident about it only being one possibility, when the link explicity provides three possibilities.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Yes, the article lists three theoretical possibilities. I expect the datacolada authors are not stating how likely they think each of those theoretical possibilities is, for obvious reasons. I don't feel under such constraints. One of those logical possibilities can be excluded entirely thanks to everyone involved agreeing that Ariely was the only person in contact with the company and handling the data ingestion. It could not have been anybody else in the lab. The other theory is beyond absurd. Not only did the insurance company fabricate the data, but they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication. Theories like your "slacking off data entry clerk" just don't make sense there. Now, maybe if Ariely could provide even a shred of evidence for this being the data he received, I could change my mind. But he can't produce the file he received from the company. He can't tell who at the company sent it to him. The trail just runs cold at Ariely.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      > they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication He'd already done lab experiments that showed the effect he thought existed, and it's easy to imagine an associate who actually fabricated the data already knew what he was looking to confirm. Again, I'm not saying I think he's guilty or not. I'm just saying that from everything I've read so far, it seems plausible it was sloppiness and not checking data for signs of manipulation. That this sloppiness isn't "beyond absurd", but rather more like the classic "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (or by an overworked/overambitious academic).

axus 3y ago

I've got other people's names and dates in some of my Office documents metadata. Sometimes it's easier to wipe all but the first two pages out and go from there, than to keep track of other people's templates. Clearly he had control over the file, but I wouldn't put too much weight on the metadata when there's plenty of other evidence.

crazygringo 3y ago

> why would the insurance company fake data? It's easy to imagine reasons. A lazy assistant who's supposed to go through 13,488 filled-out forms decides to count 1,000 of them and then fabricate the rest so they can spend the week watching soccer online instead? Or an employee lost the data on which form results were associated with which condition, and they might get fired or not get promoted if caught, so they made it up? And so forth. And metadata as you've described it doesn't sem like a smoking gun either. It's easy enough to imagine Ariely created an otherwise empty Excel sheet in the column format he wanted them to insert data into, e-mailed it to them, and got it back with their results. Or he just copied their Excel results into a spreadsheet of his own that already had other tabs, or similar. I'm not saying Ariely didn't do it or did do it, I'm just wondering if there's an actual smoking gun here, or if it's accusations but there isn't enough evidence to actually know.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
to some degree it's not relevant -- the data is bunk, and Dan A flogged it hard. He also was the only one handling it, so if the data is bad then the responsibility falls to him regardless, both as the handler, as well as the head of the investigation. He either deliberately faked it, or got garbage data and didn't realize it when, now, plenty of others have.