> Who knew psychology had such questionable science?
Well given psychology is one of the two epicenters for the replication crisis, I didn't think this should be too unexpected.
Well given psychology is one of the two epicenters for the replication crisis, I didn't think this should be too unexpected.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/two-psychologists-four...
Harkening back to episode 73, Alexa and Yoel discuss recent evidence of fraud documented in the Data Colada blog post "Clusterfake." The post is the first in a series of four, which will collectively detail evidence of fraud in four papers co-authored by Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino. […] Finally, they consider what this means for a field still struggling to build a more trustworthy foundation.
I do think most of the problem is rooted in the fact that it's difficult to do this type of science, especially without serious ethical breaches. There are so many confounding variables, and self-reported observational data just isn't a very good tool. To truly eliminate confounders, you basically need to lock someone up for decades and control their entire lifestyle.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200566
For fuck's sake, marketing and management has better numbers than psychology. It is to their merit they're admitting they have a problem, but it is 100% a problem of the field of study.
> Participants were recruited through a number of mailing lists, Twitter and blog posts. [...] For all analyses, we use survey responses; for analysis (iii), we additionally use responses to a demographic survey that included a question on academic interests; and for analysis (iv), we additionally use the prediction market data.
So it sounds like they only used prediction-market data "for analysis (iv)", which they describe as:
> [...] (iv) whether survey-based aggregated forecasts and market-based forecasts are correlated.
---
The last line of their paper:
> If our forecasts hold up, it will be interesting to investigate if specific factors (such as different methodologies and policies) can be identified that influence replication rates.
So, it doesn't sound like they're claiming that their forecasts should be assumed reliable.
So no, implying this is a Twitter poll is a far worse misrepresentation than even the most uncharitable interpretation of what I said.
this is non-nonsensical obfuscation.
poor attempt at moving the goal posts -- for the record I did not imply, I DIRECTLY QUOTED from the article.