Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgv | Hacker News Reader

It seems to be based on data grouped on questionable labeling of dubious grouping of people, correlated with a weak proxy of cognitive ability (How many word associations do homosexuals get right; that's really one of the cells in the analysis). And it answers nothing of interest. How is this publishable?

View on HN

Cognitive Ability Is Related to How Seriously You Take Studies Like This

Trust the science (unless it's science I disagree with)

Unless science has shown that much of the "Science" in this field of study is garbage

that's so like science isn't it?

You can trust science as in scientific method and practice and mistrust specific research or studies. All is well then.

If you're going through all the trouble of conducting a literature review on a given topic (ie. finding all the relevant studies and evaluating their methodology/results), then can you really call that as "scientific method and practice"? It seems much more accurate to say that you're trusting your ability to correctly evaluate studies.

Also,

"although cognitive ability was related to more affective prejudice toward relatively conservative groups and less affective prejudice toward relatively liberal groups"

You can also use this study to write "Cognitive ability linked to hatred of conservatives."

lmao

>How is this publishable?

I am guessing that if you write a paper that effectively tells the reader "you are smart", your odds of being published skyrocket regardless of the quality of your work.

In the 2011 game Hard Reset there are smart kiosks shouting "Special discount for smart people" when you go near them. Always made me smile because I've seen people fall for this sort of thing in real life

Reply on news.ycombinator.com