Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What has happened down here is the winds have changed

andrewgelman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 187 posts

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#41

Post by ak217 »

This original editorial by Fiske, especially the "methodological terrorism" soundbite, reminds me of the NEJM data sharing editorial where they described people who use datasets that others shared as "research parasites".

Both editorials are written by people in positions of academic power (Fiske is a PNAS editor - PNAS editors have a unique and often criticized ability to unilaterally review and approve publication of articles without a peer review panel; NEJM editors wield great power in medical sciences).

Both are originally directed toward a narrower audience of their journal, but taken out of the confines of their academic cloister, start to sound ridiculous in a world where the public starts to point out where their funding is coming from, and poke holes in their reasoning.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#42

Post by conistonwater »

ak217 wrote: post #41

This original editorial by Fiske, especially the "methodological terrorism" soundbite, reminds me of the NEJM data sharing editorial where they described people who use datasets that others shared as "research parasites". Both editorials are written by people in positions of academic power (Fiske is a PNAS editor - PNAS editors have a unique and often criticized ability to unilaterally review and approve publication…

> start to sound ridiculous in a world where the public starts to point out where their funding is coming from

I have to say I disagree (did I misunderstand you?): they sound absolutely ridiculous even if your only goal is to do good science and you don't care one jot for the public or funding. That was always a key problem with research parasites and Fiske's methodological terrorism: apart from everything else, it's just bad science.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#43

Post by s_q_b »

mafribe wrote: post #40
s_q_b wrote: post #37

First, I don't understand why rapid feedback is bad. Communication adapts to new mediums all the time, and academia goes with it. The arXiv pre-print system is a great example of a field adapting well to a new technology. Secondly, addressing the article's main point, I'm being told that social media comments about their studies are so traumatic and detrimental that they leave their careers. That's a problem with the…

only an incredibly insular community Or a community that has had previous success with adversarial labelling.

Ahh.. I forgot which field with which we're dealing.

However, I do like the ring of it. Instead of Data Scientist, I think my new title will be Senior Methodological Terrorist.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#44

Post by apeace »

hudibras wrote: post #29

Gelman is being a bit modest (for him) because he only mentions in passing probably the biggest recent example of the "social media takedown of psychology research" phenomenon: he was the first person to publicly raise questions about the LaCour and Green study on changing people's support for gay marriage, and he did it in his washingtonpost.com blog five days after the study was published.

Thanks for providing that context. I believe this is the article you mentioned: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/...

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#45

Post by venomsnake »

mafribe wrote: post #17
lifty wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Fiske met that constructive criticism with negative hyperbole and vague counter arguments that were not on point. People protect their vested interests and status quo by praying on people's decency and politeness, but ignore the fundamental facts in the criticism brought against them, and that leads to a proportional negative reaction from the other side. This situation reminds me of the Eastern European poli…

reminds me of the Eastern European That's interesting, but maybe not so surprising, because the techniques that people like Fiske use stem (at least in parts) from the communist tradition of undermining and taking over institutions (e.g. Trotsky's entryism).

(e.g. Trotsky's entryism) - known in modern times as diversity advocates. Let me in your group. Then change your group culture to suit me instead of me blending in.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#46

Post by _delirium »

venomsnake wrote: post #45
mafribe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reminds me of the Eastern European That's interesting, but maybe not so surprising, because the techniques that people like Fiske use stem (at least in parts) from the communist tradition of undermining and taking over institutions (e.g. Trotsky's entryism).

(e.g. Trotsky's entryism) - known in modern times as diversity advocates. Let me in your group. Then change your group culture to suit me instead of me blending in.

Trotsky's entryism was pretty specific, I don't think particularly related to your beefs. His argument was that forming small far-left workers' parties didn't make sense if there already existed large mass workers' parties, and instead communists should work within those, even if they were more moderate than you'd like, rather than forming new parties, which would be ideologically pure but not contain the actual masses of the working class who would have to form the basis of any workers' government. In most Western European countries, the majority of the working class supported various kinds of Labour and Social Democratic parties, so that's what he advocated joining.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#47

Post by forgotpwtomain »

Kenji wrote: post #27

Oh, free speech and criticism is okay as long as it's moderated and appropriate... Well played. The work of psychology researchers influences our LAWS. They influence how I can live my life. It's a very personal thing. I will criticise them however I want and as much as I want until this branch of 'science' has cleaned up its conduct. If your work cannot withstand criticism, it's worthless. Get out of science, Susan…

> The work of psychology researchers influences our LAWS. They influence how I can live my life. It's a very personal thing.

While I agree with the above sentiment:

> If your work cannot withstand criticism, it's worthless. Get out of science, Susan T. Fiske, you give it a bad name.

I think the tone is very much incorrect. While researchers should be responsible for bad science, you may it sound like it was necessarily done with malicious intent - I think this attitude is unproductive for everyone involved.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#49

Post by fenomas »

conistonwater wrote: post #42
ak217 wrote: post #41

This original editorial by Fiske, especially the "methodological terrorism" soundbite, reminds me of the NEJM data sharing editorial where they described people who use datasets that others shared as "research parasites". Both editorials are written by people in positions of academic power (Fiske is a PNAS editor - PNAS editors have a unique and often criticized ability to unilaterally review and approve publication…

> start to sound ridiculous in a world where the public starts to point out where their funding is coming from I have to say I disagree (did I misunderstand you?): they sound absolutely ridiculous even if your only goal is to do good science and you don't care one jot for the public or funding. That was always a key problem with research parasites and Fiske's methodological terrorism : apart from everything else, it'…

"sounds ridiculous in a world where X" does not mean "sounds ridiculous only in a world where X". It doesn't imply that the thing wouldn't be ridiculous if X wasn't the case.

Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed

#50

Post by [deleted] »

leephillips wrote: post #38
caseysoftware wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems they're "precarious" because massive amounts of research is "fraudulent" or at minimum plagued with errors. If my code was in a similar state, I would consider my career "precarious" or "at risk" too.

Indeed. It seems likely that there are prominent people in these fields, with decades of research and publishing behind them, almost all of it based on bad statistical methods. Naturally, there is a certain amount of panic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN