Hacker News Reader

Comment by notarobot123 | Hacker News Reader

What does "statistically reliable" mean in context of a multiple choice test of preferences and predispositions?

Replicable, in this context.

It means you can ask people on a questionnaire "are you open to new experiences" and then later offer them a new experience and get some papers off this incredibly shocking finding.

Someday psychology might be a science but it isn't now; it just rejected its alchemical mystics like it saw the cool sciences doing, but without any paradigm to follow them.

You'll be shocked when you realise that neuroimaging is entirely based on the results of cognitive measurements. i.e.: correlations between whats in the image and the kinds of tests you're traducing.

Fallacy. Just because your preferred belief framework has no supporting evidence or research doesn’t mean an actual science that you don’t like isn’t actual science. In other words, you can create your own alternative facts but they still aren’t facts.

I am not sure what "preferred belief framework" you are projecting onto me, but you may be interested to note that I mentioned no such thing.

The findings of psychology tend to be unreplicable just-so stories, like all the findings so popular in pop-psychology books that failed to replicate in the 2010s, or journal-filling tautologies, like "Big 5" papers showing introversion correlates with introversion or what have you.

Alchemy reformed into chemistry. You can make real sciences out of mysticism. Psychology is not a real science reformed out of mysticism, it's just academic bureaucracy set up like the ones associated with real sciences, producing useless papers.

Please don't enact your personal psychodrama on random people on the Internet, or at least don't do it to me.

> Please don't enact your personal psychodrama on random people on the Internet

I wouldn't dream of competing with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com