Fabricated data in research about honesty
npr.org
npr.org
This latest one has great sleuthing examples:
Their analysis suggested that the data (originally collected using Qualtrics) had been modified, i.e. that the data in the data files would not match the original data (still stored on Qualtrics' servers).
It turned out they were right:
We have received confirmation, from outside of Harvard, that Harvard's investigators did look at the original Qualtrics data file and that the data had been modified.Nobody thinks they are doing anything wrong. They think they are shoring up a weakness in a fundamentally good argument or cause.
They know what they're doing is wrong. But I don't think they did it because "everyone does it", they did it because they think they're ultimately right.
They believe in their results, they know in their heart of hearts that their conclusions are true. It's just that not all of the data lines up. It's incomplete, inconclusive, etc. Yes, it is wrong to fabricate data, however, over time, results will bear out the truth of their statements and it won't matter.
They are of the camp that process doesn't matter as long as you reach the right conclusion. Which is wrong. Process is kind of the only thing that matters.
"THE GREATER GOOD"
It's like saying Ben is short for Bennett.
Fraudulent data raise questions about superstar honesty researcher (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36726485 - July 2023 (33 comments)
UCLA professor refuses to cover for Dan Ariely in issue of data provenance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36684242 - July 2023 (131 comments)
Harvard ethics professor allegedly fabricated multiple studies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36665247 - July 2023 (215 comments)
Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36424090 - June 2023 (201 comments)
Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28264097 - Aug 2021 (102 comments)
A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28257860 - Aug 2021 (90 comments)
Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 - Aug 2021 (51 comments)
Basically we have a better package management system to reduce the supply chain attack
It is important for the public to learn - and they will need assistance to understand findings that are outside of their usual realm of knowledge/experience. Unfortunately, the resources for this are shaky, profit-motivated, and arbitrary.
Someone should tell the politicians and PR consultants...
Another strike against the entire concept of "nudges". Its become clear that it was a bit of a liberal pipe dream saying you could accomplish huge changes in people or even society with imperceptible "nudges" that conveniently meant you didn't need to address systemic issues and stone wall any attempts at grander change.
"Be more honest by changing a form." "Make people less fat by moving where the produce is in the store." Turns out things are more complicated.
It doesn't? Not even a little bit ? Genuine question. One of the example of data exploitation I was given in university is that retail companies look for patterns in the thing their customers buy, and when they see that people who buy X-kind of thing also tend to buy Y-kind of thing, they tend to put X and Y right next to each other to push the customers to buy X and Y. Wouldn't doing the opposite work ?
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-cornell-scientists-downfall-1...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20180307074049/http://www.timvan...
[3] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/who-reall...
Who is claiming this?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046264
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023
Fail to see any connection here.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/obamas-effort-...
Something you may notice about these fraud cases is that they are simple things that result in _surprising_ outcomes. I don't think people are surprised that texting teens works better given that the only people that call them are parents and telemarketers. There's two fundamental lines in the article too
> government has long been behind corporate America in following up to make sure its policies actually work.
> The SBST team’s report showed that 13 of its projects worked; one didn’t; and one was hard to tell.
And if we're getting down to it, this doesn't sound like an Obama or "liberal" thing, it sounds like a _government_ thing. Can we stop taking general concepts or universal behavior and pretending that when its bad only "my enemies" do it and when good only "my allies" do it? This is just dumb, and it happens even outside the context of politics.
I'm all for this, although it does require an agreement on epistemic principles, which seems like a tall order in the current state of our civilization. Which is why we are left with will to power.
You can see this plainly by looking at the pattern of recuperation and dilution of any proposed structural change - making up non-structural alternatives that don't work but might and then haranguing over them for years is a common pattern in liberal democracies. See for example trying to avoid public healthcare by creating "optimized marketplaces", the entire idea of nudging in economics, the idea of self-regulation, avoiding providing free national tertiary education by instead giving progressively stringent and oddly targeted scholarships, etc...
Why: A basic 101 thing one learns in Market Research is that personal questions _always_ go last.
So, if you want to ask an interviewed person if their answers were honest, researchers should be placing them last, towards the end of the questionnaire.
But, this only works if the questionnaire is oriented towards asking first impersonal questions, then more personal ones.
As another commented said: This is a lot of work. Doing research, asking people questions, gathering and then analyzing data is no walk in the park. It's sad that this happened. And, most important of all: Always being honest, no matter what the results are, even if you don't like them.
The primary one I'm aware of is making 401k a default, people are likely to stay enrolled and increase enrollment.
Really? I thought liberals were all about addressing systemic issues (eg. systemic racism), and all about "grander change" (eg. defund the police/ICE, eat the rich, etc.).
FWIW, I use it to describe that which is Lockean in substance (which entails a kind of radical, atomistic individualism that takes the individual to be the basic unit of society, and not the family), which basically means that most of the political spectrum is implicated.
Non sequitur political flamebait in the top comment. HN continues its slide.
Fuck. These. People.
We put so much work making sure the analysis is right. Sweat the design, sweat the data collection, the consent forms, and dropped the studies where the result wasn’t there, as well as reporting null results. I specifically remember having to have a terrible conversation with a phd student that, after doing a power analysis, setting up a pilot study, and collecting enough data, we got p=0.054 on the relevant test. “Sorry, we can’t add additional participants; we can’t try a new analysis. We did the right thing and we should report a non significant result. It sucks.”
And these fuckers just go ahead and forge data to land TED talks?
Yes, let’s also have a conversation about incentives and the system. But individually, I reserve my sympathy for better people. Salt the earth they walk on, and rake them over coils. This is beyond reprehensible. Fuck. Them.
It is easy enough to make honest mistakes and spread misinformation before it can be properly replicated that we do still require scientists to be honest. Active deception should come with a high cost. There should be a scientific equivalent of disbarment.
Yes, I wish so too. For what's worth, I'd buy "either of Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino write a NYT bestseller book in 5 years, go on a redemption tour, and nothing new happens" for $0.80 on a prediction market.
These people would be doing this anywhere else regardless of the incentives. Titles and power to harm others and bolster themselves are their only motivators.
People who have done real research like you and me, we'll never sit where they sit.