4 ms·
Not really taking a position on this one way or the other, but I would say that "this jives with my experience" is near to being a prerequisite for junk science
by somenameforme 3y ago
Not really taking a position on this one way or the other, but I would say that "this jives with my experience" is near to being a prerequisite for junk science. Somebody saying something controversial is going to be challenged -- confirming biases is precisely how you peddle junk.
For instance the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [1] is a terrible journal, with a replication success rate in the 20% range. Yet it's ironically well regarded. Both can probably be explained by the exact same phenomena - go read their articles and reads like a stream of bias confirmations for those of a certain ideological orientation -- the same orientation that's clearly widely shared amongst social science researchers.
[1] - https://psycnet.apa.org/PsycARTICLES/journal/psp/126/2 https://psycnet.apa.org/PsycARTICLES/journal/psp/126/2
- verdverm 3y agoI absolutely observed my own biases and created techniques to mitigate... a few that come to mind 1. Grade problem by problem. This actually makes grading sooo much easier on your own mind 2. Take a second pass to look for outliers in consistency 3. When possible, craft problems that can be automatically graded for correctness. This leaves more time for commentary on the quality of the solution (I taught computer science, which lends itself to some of this) The harder bias to handle is the one you develop for students one way or another through the course of a semester or course. Perceived effort shifts grades