4 ms·

At this point it's safe to assume that any social science research that ends up viral on social media is fake.

gumby 2y ago
This doesn't appear to be fakery but rather an error. This article points to the value of publishing the raw data and the software used to analyze it. Just casually dismissing it as "fakery" removes the opportunity to learn from it.
- piombisallow 2y ago
  It's an error they were happy to run with because it gave them a punchy conclusion and widespread publicity.
  - calpal 2y ago
    [dead]
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    The first time around they got the result they were expecting so they didn't go back and check their code. They probably would have if it initially stated the opposite.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” ― Ian Fleming, Goldfinger P-hacking is so endemic and so essential to modern academia, especially in the 'softer' sciences, that the whole thing is beyond saving. It's so bad that anyone who understands statistics well enough to know that most of their peers works are bogus are much more likely to be shunned than embraced because of this knowledge which is an incredible disincentive to acquiring it. Edit: as I can’t reply to the now dead account, the first quote explains why academia cannot keep claiming innocence on such matters. The rest of my comment was my explanation as to why nothing is being done about it. Sure, we can ask them to do better but they should already know that.
  - calpal 2y ago
    [dead]
- scarmig 2y ago
  It's more like, you should be very skeptical of any shocking results that you find reported on widely in social media and the press. Errors will always happen; they are more likely to result in shocking, surprising results; and the press actively publicizes those results over others. The original paper got widespread press coverage, and its retraction got... Much less. You end up much dumber if you outsource your thinking to the Washington Post or Facebook.
klyrs 2y ago
> At this point it's safe to assume that any social science research that ends up viral on social media is fake. Do you mean that the original study was fake or the second study that found the discrepancy is fake? Is the retraction fake?
- piombisallow 2y ago
  [flagged]
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Usually the dispute that show the "discrepancy" don't go viral. And when they do, yes I believe you should be skeptical
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
haunter 2y ago
see /r/science/

This doesn't appear to be fakery but rather an error. This article points to the value of publishing the raw data and the software used to analyze it. Just casually dismissing it as "fakery" removes the opportunity to learn from it.

piombisallow 2y ago
It's an error they were happy to run with because it gave them a punchy conclusion and widespread publicity.
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The first time around they got the result they were expecting so they didn't go back and check their code. They probably would have if it initially stated the opposite.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” ― Ian Fleming, Goldfinger P-hacking is so endemic and so essential to modern academia, especially in the 'softer' sciences, that the whole thing is beyond saving. It's so bad that anyone who understands statistics well enough to know that most of their peers works are bogus are much more likely to be shunned than embraced because of this knowledge which is an incredible disincentive to acquiring it. Edit: as I can’t reply to the now dead account, the first quote explains why academia cannot keep claiming innocence on such matters. The rest of my comment was my explanation as to why nothing is being done about it. Sure, we can ask them to do better but they should already know that.
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
scarmig 2y ago
It's more like, you should be very skeptical of any shocking results that you find reported on widely in social media and the press. Errors will always happen; they are more likely to result in shocking, surprising results; and the press actively publicizes those results over others. The original paper got widespread press coverage, and its retraction got... Much less. You end up much dumber if you outsource your thinking to the Washington Post or Facebook.

klyrs 2y ago

> At this point it's safe to assume that any social science research that ends up viral on social media is fake. Do you mean that the original study was fake or the second study that found the discrepancy is fake? Is the retraction fake?

piombisallow 2y ago
[flagged]
readthenotes1 2y ago
Usually the dispute that show the "discrepancy" don't go viral. And when they do, yes I believe you should be skeptical

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

haunter 2y ago

see /r/science/