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

When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#51

Post by conistonwater »

throwawayjava wrote: post #42
conistonwater wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so you know, the basic statistical problem with this type of research was pointed out back in the 60's ( http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/06/needed-an-intellectual-hi... ), it's just that nobody listened.

My point is that: 1. failing to have read Meehl's critique doesn't amount to "corruption", 2. that calling people "corrupt" for having failed to read Meehl is not likely to be the most effective or the most civil path toward changing things, and 3. To the extent that discussion of scientific methodology on public forums causes or contributes to (2), that's a bad thing and perhaps suggests a fundamental cost of doing…

I think you're using a different sense of the word "corrupt" from the one in the post you're replying to ("The "scientific venue" has been corrupted."). I know it's easy to lose nuance in internet discussions, but please read the posts above more carefully/charitably. Nothing Cuddy did was corrupt in any sense, only poor science.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#52

Post by throwawayjava »

conistonwater wrote: post #51
throwawayjava wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that: 1. failing to have read Meehl's critique doesn't amount to "corruption", 2. that calling people "corrupt" for having failed to read Meehl is not likely to be the most effective or the most civil path toward changing things, and 3. To the extent that discussion of scientific methodology on public forums causes or contributes to (2), that's a bad thing and perhaps suggests a fundamental cost of doing…

I think you're using a different sense of the word "corrupt" from the one in the post you're replying to ("The "scientific venue" has been corrupted."). I know it's easy to lose nuance in internet discussions, but please read the posts above more carefully/charitably. Nothing Cuddy did was corrupt in any sense, only poor science.

I re-read the comment, and disagree. The preceding sentence is: Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics

I'm having trouble finding a charitable way to read the claim that someone is misusing a scientific venue.

And much more to the point, I doubt even more that the subject of those sentences (or the e.g. tenure/promotion committee of that subject) could be reasonably expected to apply such an abundance of charity.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#53

Post by danso »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #48
danso wrote: post #9

Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…

Andrew Gelman is a rare breed -- he's brilliant, hard working, engages with the public, writes both technical and (semi-)pop articles, and isn't an asshole. And we works in a field -- mathematics -- where there is very little confusion as to whether a result is right or wrong. This makes lesser people working in dirtier subjects very uncomfortable: when he hits them they have nothing of substance to hit back with exc…

As someone outside the scientific-academic community, I find his posts very accessible for learning news/issues about studies. I greatly appreciate his passion in trying to stop junk science from reaching the media. Maybe his rhetoric is too brash and coarse for the respectful standards of scientific discourse, but it's as harsh as it needs to be for scolding media outlets for running with junk science:

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/05/npr-bites/

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/11/03/its-not-about-reality-its...

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#54

Post by hprotagonist »

A good working definition of a good researcher, to me, is something like "strong opinions, loosely held".

I don't think Cuddy, or anyone else, deserves to be dragged through the mud because their idea turns out not to hold up. That happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing at all.

You start to deserve that dragging more when you become too attached to your pet theory and cease to be able to drop it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You really deserve it when you use what political capital you've acquired to stomp on your critics despite the fact that they're actually right and you're actually wrong.

What's interesting here is that a lot of the Sayre's Law-type political machinations are taking place on a much broader stage than normal. If someone was to go after my work with this kind of exposure, you bet I'd be defensive too. It's entirely possible to have a fair and neutral conversation about research practices without shanking someone's reputation because it seems like the field needs a sacrificial lamb this week. Nobody wins, and certainly no good research is advanced, when the knives come out like this with no evidence of actual malfeasance. (And, frankly, even when there is evidence of malfeasance. like with the STAP controversy, which lead to at least one actual death.)

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#55

Post by Bartweiss »

skybrian wrote: post #34
danso wrote: post #9

Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…

Stakes matter. A million dollar poker game might be structurally identical to a game played for fun, but its effects on the people involved are very different. We wouldn't expect the players in these two games to think the same way. Talking about the stakes is in direct conflict with the scientific ideal of focusing on the science without talking about its effects on the scientists involved. For example, from Gelman'…

> Well, except that maybe she wouldn't have gotten a Ted talk without it?

A recent BBC event aimed at solving problems faced by women in tech flew Amy Cuddy in to give design and professional advice to the participants. The BBC story repeatedly celebrated Cuddy for giving the "second most watched TED talk ever". It also talked up the "Wonder Woman power pose" as a way to change your life.

Notably not present at the event were Cuddy's co-authors Carney and Yap, who have been vastly more receptive to the replication question, and less quick to promote uncertain results in non-academic channels.

Scientific falsehoods are almost always more impressive than the truth - they aren't constrained to realistic effects. At a certain point it starts to look like we're actively rewarding people for doing bad research and then rewarding them further for refusing to correct course.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-41476954

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#56

Post by ryanobjc »

danso wrote: post #9

Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…

Sexism is more than "safer to talk shit to a woman compared to a man" as you say in your article.

Sexism comes out in target choice, and the strength of which ones chases their prey, and the vehemence of attacks.

I do strongly believe that Cuddy was overly punished for being a woman, and being prominent in the field. Everyone loves when the "high and might" come "crashing down" -> the underdog stories and the desire for retribution are sought after more powerfully than (a) justified and (b) end worthiness of the goal.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that this has improved the field and made science better. It just means now that there is money and recognition to be made being attack dogs. That's hardly better.

As for Gelman, he wasn't portrayed in a great light, but I think it is fair. He's willing to encourage incivility and outright sexism and hostility as long as he doesnt have to talk to someone he disagrees with. That's the baseline definition of a coward there. And yes, I would discuss that with him in person and call him such a thing to his face.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#57

Post by lliamander »

skybrian wrote: post #34
danso wrote: post #9

Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…

Stakes matter. A million dollar poker game might be structurally identical to a game played for fun, but its effects on the people involved are very different. We wouldn't expect the players in these two games to think the same way. Talking about the stakes is in direct conflict with the scientific ideal of focusing on the science without talking about its effects on the scientists involved. For example, from Gelman'…

A senior poker player showing another in need of help how to play the game so that they have the best chance of coming out ahead is precisely the most sympathetic thing he could do.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#58

Post by conistonwater »

throwawayjava wrote: post #52
conistonwater wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're using a different sense of the word "corrupt" from the one in the post you're replying to ("The "scientific venue" has been corrupted."). I know it's easy to lose nuance in internet discussions, but please read the posts above more carefully/charitably. Nothing Cuddy did was corrupt in any sense, only poor science.

I re-read the comment, and disagree. The preceding sentence is: Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics I'm having trouble finding a charitable way to read the claim that someone is misusing a scientific venue. And much more to the point, I doubt even more that the subject of those sentences (or the e.g. tenure/promotion committee of that subject) could be reasonably…

Think "corrupted file", not "corrupt official". The key difference is that there is a primary purpose for their existence (a file stores data, a scientific process produces good and reliable findings), and something can be corrupted (no longer suitable for its purpose) without malice involved. To call an official corrupted, you need to allege malice, to say that a file is corrupted, you only need to show that it's not valid for its purpose. It's not a good choice of a word anyway, you could make exactly the same valid point without any of the ambiguity.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#59

Post by srtjstjsj »

throwawayjava wrote: post #20
lliamander wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mischaracterize. Fiske is not criticizing "people who pointed out statistical errors" and begins the entire essay by explicitly stating as such: "Our field has always encourages -- required, really -- peer critiques"! > She is criticizing "unfiltered trash-talk [on social media]... [and] online vigilantes [who] are attacking individuals, their research programs, and their careers". Let me quote Gelman regarding…

Gelman has forged his own path to "fame, fortune, and acclaim". It's not clear to me that this path has actually improved (this particular branch of) science. In fact, by the sound of it, that path may've been at least as destructive as he claims Fiske et al's was. Which isn't an indict of Gelman, as I hardly intuit anything but positive intentions on his part. I'm less concerned with Fiske vs. Gelman and much more c…

If Cuddy's phony research got into TED talks and books and a lecture circuit, why should non-phony criticism be locked up in journals?

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#60

Post by throwawayjava »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #59
throwawayjava wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gelman has forged his own path to "fame, fortune, and acclaim". It's not clear to me that this path has actually improved (this particular branch of) science. In fact, by the sound of it, that path may've been at least as destructive as he claims Fiske et al's was. Which isn't an indict of Gelman, as I hardly intuit anything but positive intentions on his part. I'm less concerned with Fiske vs. Gelman and much more c…

If Cuddy's phony research got into TED talks and books and a lecture circuit, why should non-phony criticism be locked up in journals?

I vacuously agree with you. See other threads for my opinion on TED talks.
Post reply on HN