2 ms·
Start digging into psychotherapy research and tearing their papers apart. Then the SPR. Whole thing is corrupt to the core. A lot of papers drive public health
by hy555 1y ago
Start digging into psychotherapy research and tearing their papers apart. Then the SPR. Whole thing is corrupt to the core. A lot of papers drive public health policy outside the field as it's so vague and easy to cite but the research is only fit for retraction watch.
- neilv 1y agoBeing paid to suppress research on health/safety is potentially a different problem than, say, a high rate of irreproducible results. And if the alleged payer is outside the field, this might also be relevant to the public interest in other regards. (For example, if they're trying to suppress this, what else are they trying to do. Even if it turns out the research is invalid.)
- hy555 1y agoBoth are a problem. I should not conflate the two. I agree. Asking questions which are normal in my own field resulted in stonewalling and obvious distress. The worst thing being this leading to the end of what was a good relationship.
- neilv 1y agoIf the allegation is true, hopefully your friend speaks up. If not, you might consider whether you have actionable information yourself, any professional obligations you have (e.g., if you work in science/health/safety yourself), any societal obligations, whether reporting the allegation would be betraying a trust, and what the calculus is there.
- cjbgkagh 1y agoI figured it would be related in that it's a form of p-hacking. Do 20 studies, one gives you the 'statistically significant' results you want, suppress the other 19. Then 100% of published studies support what you want. Could be combined with p-hacking within the studies to compound the effect.
- genewitch 1y ago97% of all scientists named steve agree that global warming is happening!