4 ms·

The sad part about the field is that in the end nobody really cares what science turned out to be fake… because nobody actually cares about the specific results

by j7ake 3y ago

The sad part about the field is that in the end nobody really cares what science turned out to be fake… because nobody actually cares about the specific results that come out of psychology research.

tucnak 3y ago
Microbiology is similarly rife with fraud
- burnished 3y ago
  How so?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  At least you can more easily verify an experimental result that takes a million e coli vs one that takes a million depressed people.
- theGnuMe 3y ago
  Just wait until it's all in AI LLMs... fun times ahead.
sitkack 3y ago
That seems like a worse thing, it says something about the field. There are always going to be individuals who do things wrong, or wrong things. But ultimately, it really comes down to how the group behaves and the goals they seek.
gustavus 3y ago
Fact of the matter is Psychology is at this point more pseudo than science. The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true. The whole subject is broken down in this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se, but that the statistical and methodological tools which we _believed_ suffice to allow us to formulate experiments that make decisive epistemological statements apparently do not do so. Scott Alexander isn't imputing the behavior of most of these scientists or even the endeavor of social psychological research. He is simply observing that our methods clearly are insufficient to the end of attributing results strong epistemological weight.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    > I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se This is a characterization that you have just made, not one that the person you are replying to made. They were very clear: "The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true." Even to say something is "more pseudo than science" almost directly contradicts your characterization, because it implies that there is both science and pseudoscience.
- slt2021 3y ago
  Psychology is just vibes, dressed up as science
andoando 3y ago
I certainly don't. I see so many scientific/philosophical issues with it, and Im surprised anyone takes it seriously.
chubot 3y ago
Yup, that's the point this article makes: I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psychologys-loss https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psych... This whole debacle matters a lot socially: careers ruined, reputations in tatters, lawsuits flying. But strangely, it doesn't seem to matter much scientifically. That is, our understanding of psychology remains unchanged ... That might sound like a dunk on Gino and Ariely, or like a claim about how experimental psychology is wonderfully robust. It is, unfortunately, neither. It is actually a terrifying fact that you can reveal whole swaths of a scientific field to be fraudulent and it doesn't make a difference. --- Also interestingly the author apparently studied under Dan Gilbert at Harvard, so he's an "insider". I remember >10 years ago seeing the "happiness science" from Gilbert go around: https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-after-the-surprising-science-of-happiness/ https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-aft... Although I actually think the core insight is a good one, and a memorable one -- people are unable to predict what makes them happy. They think they will be happy if they buy a new car to show off, but if you ask them afterward, that didn't really happen. There was another one of these "TED memes" that turned out to be widely mocked / unreplicable: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolut...
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  Holy crap that article was a good read
RowdyTomato 3y ago
I understand where you are coming from. However, this overlooks a critical stakeholder group directly affected by the outcomes of such research: patients. For instance, controversies surrounding the PACE trial, which explored treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), illustrate the profound implications of research integrity. Critics have condemned the trial as "biased and profoundly flawed," arguing that its deficiencies have led to detrimental effects on patients' lives and treatment approaches. This controversy underscores the significance of research outcomes. For more insights into the academic dishonesty surrounding ME/CFS and its consequences on patients I recommended this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me-treatments-social-services https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/chroni... This issue highlights why it's crucial for both the scientific community and the public to demand rigor and transparency in research, especially when the well-being of vulnerable populations is at stake.

by j7ake 3y ago

tucnak 3y ago

Microbiology is similarly rife with fraud

burnished 3y ago
How so?
kjkjadksj 3y ago
At least you can more easily verify an experimental result that takes a million e coli vs one that takes a million depressed people.
theGnuMe 3y ago
Just wait until it's all in AI LLMs... fun times ahead.

sitkack 3y ago

That seems like a worse thing, it says something about the field. There are always going to be individuals who do things wrong, or wrong things. But ultimately, it really comes down to how the group behaves and the goals they seek.

gustavus 3y ago

Fact of the matter is Psychology is at this point more pseudo than science. The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true. The whole subject is broken down in this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...

nathan_compton 3y ago
I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se, but that the statistical and methodological tools which we _believed_ suffice to allow us to formulate experiments that make decisive epistemological statements apparently do not do so. Scott Alexander isn't imputing the behavior of most of these scientists or even the endeavor of social psychological research. He is simply observing that our methods clearly are insufficient to the end of attributing results strong epistemological weight.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se This is a characterization that you have just made, not one that the person you are replying to made. They were very clear: "The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true." Even to say something is "more pseudo than science" almost directly contradicts your characterization, because it implies that there is both science and pseudoscience.
slt2021 3y ago
Psychology is just vibes, dressed up as science

andoando 3y ago

I certainly don't. I see so many scientific/philosophical issues with it, and Im surprised anyone takes it seriously.

chubot 3y ago

Yup, that's the point this article makes: I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psychologys-loss https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psych... This whole debacle matters a lot socially: careers ruined, reputations in tatters, lawsuits flying. But strangely, it doesn't seem to matter much scientifically. That is, our understanding of psychology remains unchanged ... That might sound like a dunk on Gino and Ariely, or like a claim about how experimental psychology is wonderfully robust. It is, unfortunately, neither. It is actually a terrifying fact that you can reveal whole swaths of a scientific field to be fraudulent and it doesn't make a difference. --- Also interestingly the author apparently studied under Dan Gilbert at Harvard, so he's an "insider". I remember >10 years ago seeing the "happiness science" from Gilbert go around: https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-after-the-surprising-science-of-happiness/ https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-aft... Although I actually think the core insight is a good one, and a memorable one -- people are unable to predict what makes them happy. They think they will be happy if they buy a new car to show off, but if you ask them afterward, that didn't really happen. There was another one of these "TED memes" that turned out to be widely mocked / unreplicable: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolut...

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
Holy crap that article was a good read

RowdyTomato 3y ago

I understand where you are coming from. However, this overlooks a critical stakeholder group directly affected by the outcomes of such research: patients. For instance, controversies surrounding the PACE trial, which explored treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), illustrate the profound implications of research integrity. Critics have condemned the trial as "biased and profoundly flawed," arguing that its deficiencies have led to detrimental effects on patients' lives and treatment approaches. This controversy underscores the significance of research outcomes. For more insights into the academic dishonesty surrounding ME/CFS and its consequences on patients I recommended this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me-treatments-social-services https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/chroni... This issue highlights why it's crucial for both the scientific community and the public to demand rigor and transparency in research, especially when the well-being of vulnerable populations is at stake.