4 ms·

Virtually every study I read about in AP Psych in HS failed to replicate - including this one. That whole class in hindsight was at best a waste of time and at

Virtually every study I read about in AP Psych in HS failed to replicate - including this one. That whole class in hindsight was at best a waste of time and at worst provided bad info to make life decisions on

resource_waste 2y ago
The reputations of these authors need to be dragged through the mud. Daniel Kahneman's Wiki page doesnt make him look out to be a fraudster, despite him confidently mentioning studies that never replicated, despite him signing off on fake data from other fraudsters.
- sunjieming 2y ago
  Thinking Fast and Slow was blowing my mind until I started running into more and more studies that I knew didn't replicate. It took on a Freakonomics/Gladwell vibe after that
  - KerryJones 2y ago
    Apologies for ignorance, can you tell me more about Gladwell issues?
    - tucosan 2y ago
      Gladwell is known for citing junk science and twisting reality by adding his own unfounded interpretations to research he's basing his theories on. There's a host of criticisms of his work. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#Reception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#Reception) is a good starting point.
      - KerryJones 2y ago
        Great, thanks for this link, will dig in more.
    - P_I_Staker 2y ago
      This one is tough to know where to start. To hear him cover an issue near and dear to your heart, is infuriating. In fact, I think almost all of his podcasts ideas from the first season were terrible. Mostly, he gets so into a story it's about the narrative itself. He sounds like a crazy child with a made up theory trying to force it to work. It's hard to say from memory, but it was multiple episodes where he defended corporations and authority figures from legit criticisms, based on nonsense. Just to be clear he doesn't literally say "and there, so I proved them innocent", but he might as well and these just weird one sided crusades (about David and defending the Goliath as misunderstood). He's really not far from saying because people sometimes remember things poorly, Brian Williams definitely didn't lie (in a situation where many people lie). He basically gave the auto industry a free pass, because it's challenging to prove an exact field issue.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  That's not how science works. If you doubt the result, do your own experiment and publish it. The reputations will take care of themselves. Obviously signing off on known-fake data is straight up lying, which must remain in a different category than simply doing a study that doesn't replicate.
  - benignslime 2y ago
    [dead]
  - pawelmurias 2y ago
    A lot of psychology is vaguely science flavoured. You have them making a bunch of surveys and the making super broad claims based on this.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I think you’ll find that if you actually read the papers themselves, they don’t make nearly as broad of claims as they’re purported to in media or the public consciousness.
bankcust08385 2y ago
Psychology and psychiatry, like osteopathy and phrenology, are parts of the pseudoscience branches of philosophy, not science. This makes them more like religious cults reading tea leaves rather than able to perform controlled and replicable experiments, make clinical diagnoses based on evidence, or measure or examine the organ they're supposedly treating.

resource_waste 2y ago

The reputations of these authors need to be dragged through the mud. Daniel Kahneman's Wiki page doesnt make him look out to be a fraudster, despite him confidently mentioning studies that never replicated, despite him signing off on fake data from other fraudsters.

sunjieming 2y ago
Thinking Fast and Slow was blowing my mind until I started running into more and more studies that I knew didn't replicate. It took on a Freakonomics/Gladwell vibe after that
- KerryJones 2y ago
  Apologies for ignorance, can you tell me more about Gladwell issues?
  - tucosan 2y ago
    Gladwell is known for citing junk science and twisting reality by adding his own unfounded interpretations to research he's basing his theories on. There's a host of criticisms of his work. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#Reception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#Reception) is a good starting point.
    - KerryJones 2y ago
      Great, thanks for this link, will dig in more.
  - P_I_Staker 2y ago
    This one is tough to know where to start. To hear him cover an issue near and dear to your heart, is infuriating. In fact, I think almost all of his podcasts ideas from the first season were terrible. Mostly, he gets so into a story it's about the narrative itself. He sounds like a crazy child with a made up theory trying to force it to work. It's hard to say from memory, but it was multiple episodes where he defended corporations and authority figures from legit criticisms, based on nonsense. Just to be clear he doesn't literally say "and there, so I proved them innocent", but he might as well and these just weird one sided crusades (about David and defending the Goliath as misunderstood). He's really not far from saying because people sometimes remember things poorly, Brian Williams definitely didn't lie (in a situation where many people lie). He basically gave the auto industry a free pass, because it's challenging to prove an exact field issue.
llamaimperative 2y ago
That's not how science works. If you doubt the result, do your own experiment and publish it. The reputations will take care of themselves. Obviously signing off on known-fake data is straight up lying, which must remain in a different category than simply doing a study that doesn't replicate.
- benignslime 2y ago
  [dead]
- pawelmurias 2y ago
  A lot of psychology is vaguely science flavoured. You have them making a bunch of surveys and the making super broad claims based on this.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I think you’ll find that if you actually read the papers themselves, they don’t make nearly as broad of claims as they’re purported to in media or the public consciousness.

bankcust08385 2y ago

Psychology and psychiatry, like osteopathy and phrenology, are parts of the pseudoscience branches of philosophy, not science. This makes them more like religious cults reading tea leaves rather than able to perform controlled and replicable experiments, make clinical diagnoses based on evidence, or measure or examine the organ they're supposedly treating.