3 ms·
Arguably, we'd have fared worse: we'd be starting our days by taking a power stance while listening to the TV broadcast of lists of positive words to prime ours
by constantius 8mo ago
Arguably, we'd have fared worse: we'd be starting our days by taking a power stance while listening to the TV broadcast of lists of positive words to prime ourselves into greatness, then we'd go out and salute people with "Most people in your neighbourhood are having a great day". All exams would be not-eating-marshmallows exams. Only upshot I can think of is HN would be called PHackerNews.
No, if there's one social science we should have picked, it's anthropology I tell you.
- disgruntledphd2 8mo ago> Arguably, we'd have fared worse: we'd be starting our days by taking a power stance while listening to the TV broadcast of lists of positive words to prime ourselves into greatness, then we'd go out and salute people with "Most people in your neighbourhood are having a great day". This is all psychology research (which presumably you know). (I definitely do as I have a PhD in it). > No, if there's one social science we should have picked, it's anthropology I tell you. I actually agree with this, will update my rant to include this next time.
- constantius 8mo agoYes... I should have come up with jokes about deconstructing the power dynamics inherent to lunch, but I don't know many egregious examples of retracted sociology studies, so I chose to not only disregard HN rules but also to do so lazily... Will do better when I reply to your anthropology-fueled rant.
- disgruntledphd2 8mo ago> Yes... I should have come up with jokes about deconstructing the power dynamics inherent to lunch, but I don't know many egregious examples of retracted sociology studies, so I chose to not only disregard HN rules but also to do so lazily... To be fair, this is more a function of psychology having a lot of experimental studies (as you can normally run them on individuals) which tend to get lots of press, and they're badly conducted because most psychologists suck at stats (and the incentives are towards publishing or perishing). That being said, it's really good that we now know lots of them were garbage and is a sign of decent science being done. Sociology OTOH (rather like economics) typically deals with observational data which is less flashy and prone to all kinds of errors that make it harder to figure out what a replication would even look like (we can't generate another 100 countries to test, unfortunately).