Hacker News Reader

Comment by teaearlgrey_hot | Hacker News Reader

Disagree from experience. I find it far more likely that they considered how to skew the p-values low enough to where they become significant. “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me.

View on HN

> “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me.

All studies that use terms like that have a section that explains how they are measuring it, how other studies have used the same measure and how that measure itself is tested for reproducibility and accuracy.

doesn't necessarily mean they are ACTUALLY measuring anything real. just sayin'

So without training in the field, having read about the specific example or anything else, you can say the entire study is trash?

Pretty sure caution was what was advised with no opinion one way or the other. Being extra cautious about preliminary psych findings is only sensible. It might be considered batshit crazy to do anything else given the issues we've found out about in that field. Does it reproduce? Is the right question to ask.

I'd think of it more like such studies being potential stepping stones towards the establishment of scientific facts, rather than establishing those facts alone. But it will take more work and by separate groups before anyone can have faith that these findings are meaningful - especially given the background of the reproducibility crisis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com