When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy • Hacker News Board

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#131

Post by AlexCoventry » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:49 AM UTC

defen wrote: post #97

ryanobjc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Sexism comes out in target choice, and the strength of which ones chases their prey, and the vehemence of attacks. Gelman regularly eviscerates the research of Brian Wansink on his blog, in the exact same way that he did to Cuddy.

He's considerably harder on Wansink than he was on Cuddy, actually.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#132

Post by lovich » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 6:44 AM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #63

lovich wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that not the case anyway? I admit I have no experience contributing but that's from hearing things like how the linux development team runs and people like Sarah Sharp quitting over the abuse. It's given me the impression that if I don't create something that is up to a teams standard from commit 0 then I will be ridiculed in a public forum

Before deciding that Linux (the most successful open source projecting history?) is poorly run. you have to weigh people quitting over the abuse against all the other contributors and maintainers building something that relies in part on that abuse. > It's given me the impression that if I don't create something that is up to a teams standard from commit 0 Linus has said that he reserves his abuse for senior people w…

I never stated that it was poorly run, acting like this might get better results. I was replying to the poster who postulated what could happen if a hit piece was ran in a public setting against someone for their OSS contributions and how it seemed like reality wasn't already too far off from that to me

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#133

Post by amazingman » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

killjoywashere wrote: post #125

geofft wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the smaller your p , the higher your chance of false negatives, too; maybe there was an actual effect there that was worth more study, and you dismissed it. The problem is that a study that's significant at p = 0.05 but not p = 0.01 is worth something to science. It indicates something worth doing several more studies on, preferably by different teams from different institutes with non-overlapping confounding f…

Here's the structural problem I see: there are acres, literally, acres of computer science types in SF and certain other enclaves, slaving away on ads when they would rather be curing cancer. But they don't know the first thing about cancer. Meanwhile, there are enclaves where biologists are slaving away capturing data and not even realizing it's data. "Bookkeeping data" they might call it. There should be mixers bet…

You’re not wrong. Especially not about the ads. What we need, unfortunately, are (at least) 2 very difficult things to achieve legislatively:

1. A legal framework for health-related products & services that meaningfully protects individual privacy, and yet also preserves the conditions for the kind of velocity and rate of change that brings technological progress to the masses reliably and quickly.

2. Massive academic funding for more “pure” research in hardware & software design, engineering, the philosophy of what’s possible, the phenomenon and ethics of what we choose to build, and so on. TLDR Pay more people more money to do important research in the public domain, which I can’t help but think would attract many of the CS types you mentioned.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#134

Post by mattmcknight » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC

mattmcknight wrote: post #118

throwawayjava wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the poss…

I talk about the problems with Fiske and you say: "Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?"" I am not criticizing Cuddy. Fiske is editor of PNAS, former president of APS, and is putting her criticisms in APS Observer. The difference between a journal and an official magazine of a scientific organization is irrelevant in this concept, in that the supposed super…

Here's a paper she edited on corruption. The conditions are there: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/10651

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#135

Post by mattmanser » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

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 article directly contradicts a lot of what you've written and addresses all your points.

It such a shame for you to start viciously attacking Cuddy again for positions she clearly doesn't hold, when this article is directly about your misconceptions.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#136

Post by killjoywashere » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

amazingman wrote: post #133

killjoywashere wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the structural problem I see: there are acres, literally, acres of computer science types in SF and certain other enclaves, slaving away on ads when they would rather be curing cancer. But they don't know the first thing about cancer. Meanwhile, there are enclaves where biologists are slaving away capturing data and not even realizing it's data. "Bookkeeping data" they might call it. There should be mixers bet…

You’re not wrong. Especially not about the ads. What we need, unfortunately, are (at least) 2 very difficult things to achieve legislatively: 1. A legal framework for health-related products & services that meaningfully protects individual privacy, and yet also preserves the conditions for the kind of velocity and rate of change that brings technological progress to the masses reliably and quickly. 2. Massive academi…

> a legal framework that protects privacy yet brings technological progress to the masses quickly

That exists, but there's upfront educational costs that need to be handled first.

> Massive academic funding

Look at Europe: their acedemics work much more closely with industry. Get a someone who can code in a room with a physician, and I garuntee they can find a problem to work on. Show a successful prototype, and we're way below "minimum viable product" here. Show a graph with real data and money will start looking for you.

Computer scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and engineers need to go to biology conferences. And biologists should be going to math, ML, and software conferences.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#137

Post by ndh2 » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #28

tl;dr Promising young researcher skated on stats and talked up faulty finding, career seriously damaged by lack of replicability; reformers who are too earnest about a good cause (replication, statistical rigor) can be total assholes to well-meaning people who just make mistakes; conflict ensues. It's OK to be oppositional or confrontational to people based on what they say and do, but self-styled reformists sometime…

Not a real tl;dr.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#138

Post by mattmcknight » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:40 PM UTC

mattmcknight wrote: post #118

throwawayjava wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the poss…

I talk about the problems with Fiske and you say: "Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?"" I am not criticizing Cuddy. Fiske is editor of PNAS, former president of APS, and is putting her criticisms in APS Observer. The difference between a journal and an official magazine of a scientific organization is irrelevant in this concept, in that the supposed super…

Here's an interview with the brave researcher who asked her about this at a conference. Her quote "There is no mechanism in place that holds researchers accountable for practices that lead to a corrupted literature but cannot clearly be classified as fraud" is probably a less aggressive version of what I am saying.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#139

Post by geofft » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #126

geofft wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a system that's gameable, but no more gameable than other things our society seems to be fine with: have peers evaluate you for the quality of your work as opposed to your outputs. Retain people whose peers say "They do good work," even if they don't have a flashy success or novel discovery to show. This is roughly how private industry works. I'm of course asked in job interviews about my successes, but the pr…

How do you allocate funding?

Give funding and recognition/status to large organizations (groups of at least 100 researchers) that produce good work, without naming names except perhaps in truly exceptional cases. Refuse meddling from outside incentives that break the organizational abstraction barrier (prizes, fellowships, grant proposals that with individuals named on them, fellowships or grant proposals that stay with individuals across organizations, etc.). Create alternative structures that recognize organizations that are producing results with fame and fortune.

Note that by "organizations" I don't mean "universities" or "institutions". Departments should probably be treated separately, as different departments within an institution can easily drift in terms of quality. Meanwhile, it should be possible recognize collaborations of researchers across researchers as an entity: if the collaboration wants to support a researcher moving between institutions and wants to keep supporting them, that doesn't lead to the same flaws, I think.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#140

Post by nonbel » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #93

srtjstjsj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having the misfortune of the one-in-twenty chance of getting a really interesting false positive at p = 0.05 means you either have to double down on the study Or you could get a large sample size to bring the p down to 0.01 or whatever. You know, do science.

Well, the smaller your p , the higher your chance of false negatives, too; maybe there was an actual effect there that was worth more study, and you dismissed it. The problem is that a study that's significant at p = 0.05 but not p = 0.01 is worth something to science. It indicates something worth doing several more studies on, preferably by different teams from different institutes with non-overlapping confounding f…

>"The problem is that a study that's significant at p = 0.05 but not p = 0.01 is worth something to science. It indicates something worth doing several more studies on"

I still don't understand this one. The null model is (almost) always false. In this situation a small p-value is only a matter of sample size and measurement precision. How can it possibly indicate you should work more on something?

One thing I think may make sense is to get a bunch of p-values and then choose the lowest 10 or whatever to focus on for further work. There is no reason to include an arbitrary cut-off here though.