5 ms·

> Sounds more like this is just an exhibit of the replication crisis. Do you have evidence of that, or are you saying it looks the same? The replication crisi

> Sounds more like this is just an exhibit of the replication crisis. Do you have evidence of that, or are you saying it looks the same? The replication crisis on HN is replication of these comments in every discussion of social science research. The papers that they tried to replicate at least were at least based on evidence, and the conclusion was not that they were completely wrong but that, for many papers (not all by any measure), the conclusion was replicated but the evidence wasn't quite as strong as in the original.

layer8 3y ago
There are two explanations for the discrepancy between the original study and the present one: 1) The behavior of people has changed substantively since the first study. (Which is what the present study seems to be concluding.) 2) At least one of the studies wasn’t representative and/or didn’t actually measure what it claimed to measure. (That is, an exhibit of the replication crisis.) What I’m saying is that explanation 2 seems much more plausible to me, given that the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  There are other explanations too, and every study flaw, if it exists, doesn't implicate the "replication crisis". > the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all. 30 years ago you had some anecdotal impressions. 30 years ago the researchers had a hypothesis, focused on this exact question, designed an experiment, and collected evidence. (And many since have found it valid.) 30 years later, we have a detailed written report of their experience, and your 30-year old memory as posted on HN. It's just too easy to say, 'that's not my experience' without evidence. Everything is 'debunked' on that basis. Now we have 30 year old memories too.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    You know the replication crisis is a real thing, right?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      What do you mean by "real thing"? The comment to which you responded makes clear I know about the issues in detail, so I'm clearly aware of it. If you mean that yours and/or layer8's perspectives are a 'real thing', you don't have a privileged claim on reality, of course (and neither do I).

layer8 3y ago

There are two explanations for the discrepancy between the original study and the present one: 1) The behavior of people has changed substantively since the first study. (Which is what the present study seems to be concluding.) 2) At least one of the studies wasn’t representative and/or didn’t actually measure what it claimed to measure. (That is, an exhibit of the replication crisis.) What I’m saying is that explanation 2 seems much more plausible to me, given that the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all.

wolverine876 3y ago
There are other explanations too, and every study flaw, if it exists, doesn't implicate the "replication crisis". > the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all. 30 years ago you had some anecdotal impressions. 30 years ago the researchers had a hypothesis, focused on this exact question, designed an experiment, and collected evidence. (And many since have found it valid.) 30 years later, we have a detailed written report of their experience, and your 30-year old memory as posted on HN. It's just too easy to say, 'that's not my experience' without evidence. Everything is 'debunked' on that basis. Now we have 30 year old memories too.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  You know the replication crisis is a real thing, right?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    What do you mean by "real thing"? The comment to which you responded makes clear I know about the issues in detail, so I'm clearly aware of it. If you mean that yours and/or layer8's perspectives are a 'real thing', you don't have a privileged claim on reality, of course (and neither do I).