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

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#101

Post by ghostcluster »

The work of these social psychologists absolutely deserves the scrutiny they are receiving. The field is rife with "surprising scientific effects" that do not replicate and turn out to be completely wrong, yet they linger in the popular culture and are brought up over and over again to defend ideas and policies that are not based in reality.

Look at the reach of people like Malcolm Gladwell and stuff like his books and podcast, and NPR's Hidden Brain, which subsist on recounting these "surprising studies" and speculating about their profound meaning for society, to gigantic audiences. And they're wrong! Made up ideological BS with the gravitas of 'serious science' behind them.

Power posing, stereotype threat, the bystander effect, implicit bias. So many popular hypotheses have snuck into the popular culture and they are wrong. They're based on fudging numbers and statistics and throwing out results that don't fit the hypothesis. They deserve to be combated in the public sphere. They don't deserve to be shielded to protect the careers of the hucksters.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#102

Post by ghostcluster »

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…

"Confining scientific critique to scientific venues"

When you take your BS "studies" and sell it to the audience at TED and then the wider internet, go on corporate speaking tours, sign book deals to promote your "science", and try to affect public policy, you are open to criticism from anyone who sees through your shoddy methodology and wants to correct the record.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#103

Post by [deleted] »

Bartweiss wrote: post #62
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…

> I also can believe that she faces hostile criticism that isn't equally distributed among all the other researchers who used weak, but previously acceptable standards. I agree that this is true, but at a certain point it seems like a justified reaction to unequal importance. Other Gelman targets like the "himmicanes" paper generated a bit of media attention without any real consequence. Power poses, meanwhile, have…

[deleted]

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#104

Post by ghostcluster »

Bartweiss wrote: post #62
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…

> I also can believe that she faces hostile criticism that isn't equally distributed among all the other researchers who used weak, but previously acceptable standards. I agree that this is true, but at a certain point it seems like a justified reaction to unequal importance. Other Gelman targets like the "himmicanes" paper generated a bit of media attention without any real consequence. Power poses, meanwhile, have…

> the results were widely touted and are still being raised to public acceptance even as they fall apart. The challenges to stereotype threat, priming, and the IAT are even scarier

They're in the same boat. It is maddening how much stereotype threat gets brought up to defend certain ideas, or how it has worked its way into corporate diversity policy, and it appears to be built on a foundation of sand [1]. The worst part is, if you question it publicly, you stand a change of being treated like James Damore.

[1] - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/is...

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#105

Post by hannob »

sliverstorm wrote: post #84
geofft wrote: post #5

It occurs to me that the replication crisis largely came into being because scientists are rewarded for publishing papers that demonstrate some effect and not for publishing papers that fail to demonstrate anything, and so the right fix would have been to fix the broken incentives. But apparently (if this article is to be believed) no such change in incentives has happened - the only thing is that there are now also…

Steadily doing good science, where good science is expected not to produce results much of the time, continues to have no support. We say this, but I haven't heard any particularly good ideas on how to build such a system that isn't also easy to game. How do you ensure the failed studies were actually worth doing? Is peer review of study design feasible?

> We say this, but I haven't heard any particularly good ideas on how to build such a system that isn't also easy to game. How do you ensure the failed studies were actually worth doing? Is peer review of study design feasible?

Are you aware of Registered Reports? https://cos.io/rr/

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#106

Post by fishcolorbrick »

lliamander wrote: post #36
throwawayjava wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. geofft's comment hits the nail on the head when it comes to what effect this did vs. should've had on her tenure case, I think. A study that fails to replicate is no indication of malice or even incompetence. Some say she should've run self-replications, but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr (in fact, how many…

> As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. I know, and I think we are mostly in agreement. I generally don't like seeing individuals dragged through the mud. It's also somewhat unfair to judge her actions pre-replication crisis by our standards post-replication crisis. I also agree that a single study failing to replicate is not an instance of malice or incompetence, in fact I think all sc…

> I think it makes me more sympathetic to her case. If Harvard had not hired her, or TED not promoted her, she would not have been subject to nearly the same scrutiny or ire as she was. Ironically, she might have had a better shot at a good long-term career. But who, at that point, would have turned down either of these prizes? I know I wouldn't have.

There is a concept in management called the Peter principle, which is that "managers rise to the level of their incompetence". I've always worried about it in myself - I work hard to advance my career, but is it possible I'm sabotaging my own long term success? What if I get the high-profile new responsibilities I'm striving towards... and then fail spectacularly?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#107

Post by projektir »

michaelt wrote: post #83
projektir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps we should be teaching scientists that staking their identities on particular results is to be resisted as much as possible. But does this make sense? Can a scientist survive without doing this? Can a scientist get very far without results right now? Is this a problem of the scientist, or perhaps the social/economic expectation?

Personally if I was going to stake my professional reputation on a set of results, I'd expand from an exploratory study with a 20% chance of being wrong to a more rigorous study with, say, a 0.1% chance of being wrong. Of course, that's much easier for people in STEM than it is for social scientists.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for the average scientist, it's that 20% risk... or nothing.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#108

Post by shoyer »

Balgair wrote: post #89
geofft wrote: post #5

It occurs to me that the replication crisis largely came into being because scientists are rewarded for publishing papers that demonstrate some effect and not for publishing papers that fail to demonstrate anything, and so the right fix would have been to fix the broken incentives. But apparently (if this article is to be believed) no such change in incentives has happened - the only thing is that there are now also…

Oh, so, 'Capital S' Science[0] has moved on from publish-or-perish to funding-or-famine. Most researchers are in 'famine' and their spouse is financing their lifestyle of crazy hours and stress (love is strange, for sure). Some are in 'funding' and they generally get all the cash from grant agencies. Where I am, each square foot of your research is ~$420/month for rent, including your office. Then you start buying la…

> each square foot of your research is ~$420/month for rent

I think you missed a decimal point or two here -- $42,000/month for a 100 square foot office can't be right :).

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#109

Post by moyix »

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…

Small correction: Gelman is at Columbia, not NYU.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#110

Post by xy55 »

shoyer wrote: post #108
Balgair wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, so, 'Capital S' Science[0] has moved on from publish-or-perish to funding-or-famine. Most researchers are in 'famine' and their spouse is financing their lifestyle of crazy hours and stress (love is strange, for sure). Some are in 'funding' and they generally get all the cash from grant agencies. Where I am, each square foot of your research is ~$420/month for rent, including your office. Then you start buying la…

> each square foot of your research is ~$420/month for rent I think you missed a decimal point or two here -- $42,000/month for a 100 square foot office can't be right :).

gp also misnamed Brian Wansink as Andrew Wansink
Post reply on HN