4 ms·

Got a cite to back that up? Because Ritchie claims that no serious methodological issues were raised during the review process, other than the ridiculous "You

Got a cite to back that up? Because Ritchie claims that no serious methodological issues were raised during the review process, other than the ridiculous "You can't get positive results from an ESP test unless you believe in it."

Alex3917 15y ago
I don't remember the exact article that discussed it, but I'm sure you could find it by searching HN. Other than the issue you mentioned, the other issue was that the original study was done in person using Ivy league students, whereas the replication was done over the Internet using a non-comparable demographic. Regardless of whether or not one thinks it's ridiculous that these issues could have any effect, it's intellectually dishonest for them to say that they've replicated Bem's methodology and failed to reproduce the results when in fact they haven't actually done so. (The researcher-belief issue matters since we already know that the how well a drug work depends on how much the person administering the drug believes it will work, which is why for well-designed drug trials the investigators aren't the ones who administer the drug. So it's not like the replication was being dinged for not subscribing to some exotic new methodology, rather they were being shot down for not following existing best practices. That said, I have no idea whether there were videos how much the researcher's beliefs would have actually been apparent, so I don't really know whether or not it was reasonable for the journal to reject it based on this one point.)
- gergles 15y ago
  > we already know that the how well a drug work depends on how much the person administering the drug believes it will work hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah what? No, no we do not. If you have a citation that suggests otherwise, I would be thrilled to read it. The reason that we blind is because there ARE effects based on perception if the person administering the drug knows its experimental. There have been studies indicating that the administrator would say things like "this really should work", for example. That invokes the placebo effect response in the patients (which is also well documented,) but the concept that "we know how well a drug works depends on how much the person administering it believes in it" is completely incorrect.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    Everything you said in your comment supports what I said. If there is any non-zero effect attributable to the beliefs of the person administering the drug, then it is 100% correct to say that how well a drug works depends on how much the person administering it believes it will work, regardless of whether the difference in outcomes is enormous or tiny.
    - gergles 15y ago
      No, there is a difference between belief and actions. The action of saying "this one should really work" of course has an effect. There is absolutely no scientific evidence anywhere to support that the "belief" on the part of an administrator in a drug trial has anything to do with any outcomes.
      - Alex3917 15y ago
        That's simply not true. C.f. the clever hans effect, or all of the recent research on drug dogs: http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml I think that should be sufficient to prove that beliefs can be transmitted non-verbally. You are trying to argue there is some distinction between belief and action, but the only reason any 'action' has an effect is because it transmits a belief. What you are saying is that the non-verbal transmission of a belief could not have an effect on outcomes, whereas the verbal transmission of a belief can. This makes no sense.

Alex3917 15y ago

I don't remember the exact article that discussed it, but I'm sure you could find it by searching HN. Other than the issue you mentioned, the other issue was that the original study was done in person using Ivy league students, whereas the replication was done over the Internet using a non-comparable demographic. Regardless of whether or not one thinks it's ridiculous that these issues could have any effect, it's intellectually dishonest for them to say that they've replicated Bem's methodology and failed to reproduce the results when in fact they haven't actually done so. (The researcher-belief issue matters since we already know that the how well a drug work depends on how much the person administering the drug believes it will work, which is why for well-designed drug trials the investigators aren't the ones who administer the drug. So it's not like the replication was being dinged for not subscribing to some exotic new methodology, rather they were being shot down for not following existing best practices. That said, I have no idea whether there were videos how much the researcher's beliefs would have actually been apparent, so I don't really know whether or not it was reasonable for the journal to reject it based on this one point.)

gergles 15y ago
> we already know that the how well a drug work depends on how much the person administering the drug believes it will work hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah what? No, no we do not. If you have a citation that suggests otherwise, I would be thrilled to read it. The reason that we blind is because there ARE effects based on perception if the person administering the drug knows its experimental. There have been studies indicating that the administrator would say things like "this really should work", for example. That invokes the placebo effect response in the patients (which is also well documented,) but the concept that "we know how well a drug works depends on how much the person administering it believes in it" is completely incorrect.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  Everything you said in your comment supports what I said. If there is any non-zero effect attributable to the beliefs of the person administering the drug, then it is 100% correct to say that how well a drug works depends on how much the person administering it believes it will work, regardless of whether the difference in outcomes is enormous or tiny.
  - gergles 15y ago
    No, there is a difference between belief and actions. The action of saying "this one should really work" of course has an effect. There is absolutely no scientific evidence anywhere to support that the "belief" on the part of an administrator in a drug trial has anything to do with any outcomes.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      That's simply not true. C.f. the clever hans effect, or all of the recent research on drug dogs: http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml I think that should be sufficient to prove that beliefs can be transmitted non-verbally. You are trying to argue there is some distinction between belief and action, but the only reason any 'action' has an effect is because it transmits a belief. What you are saying is that the non-verbal transmission of a belief could not have an effect on outcomes, whereas the verbal transmission of a belief can. This makes no sense.