David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades • Hacker News Board

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#61

Post by jakewins » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:12 AM UTC

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #58

Gatsky wrote: post #46

Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include…

> The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. So what social-psychological experiments are bogus? The most famous problem experiment I can think of is Zimbardo's fake prison, and IIRC the primary objection was that the effect was too strong. He let it go on too long and everyone was disgusted. Rosenhan's experiment is bogus, yes, but I have to wonder... psychiatrists…

The problem with the Stanford Prison Experiment was that the guards were secretly coached by the researchers to get the effect their hypothesis predicted, not that "the effect was too strong": https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#62

Post by dmix » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:20 AM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #46

Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include…

I can't seem to figure out the incentives behind [2], the idea that during door-to-door canvassing only gay people can be effective at changing non-gay people's minds about same-sex marriage seems like an odd narrative for someone to want to push.

Other than encouraging employment of gay individuals by political campaigns/canvassers or maybe a general superiority complex, by stating that only gay people are capable of changing people's minds on the subject.

I have noticed a general pattern on Twitter, from people who push this sort of social science stuff, that they believe only people who are in the in-group (ie, race, gender, class, etc) are allowed to have opinions or engage in research about the group itself. Which always seemed anti-intellectual and borderline dangerous, as it actively discourages the wider population not only from doing useful research but also helping overcome ignorance in their day-to-day conversations, writing books, political projects, etc and generally engaging in issues.

It just makes everyone even more scared, careful, and closed off to the subject(s). Which is the opposite incentive structure for 'producing a cascade of opinion change' (as the study claims).

This just seems to be a punitive approach to change/progress, where oppressed groups, or people representing the groups, are just in it to collect an endless amount of things to shame other people for "not getting it", which ties back into the superiority thing. Assuming the actual goal is ending oppression, this is taking a totally backwards approach by providing ever more ways to minimize and degrade the opinions and personhood of other groups. And when this (self-)destructive strategy is challenged it's met with a bunch of hand-wavy stuff about privilege to justify everything.

Meanwhile the average person on the outside is just trying to live there life and aren't heavily invested. This punitive approach, particularly via social media, would seem to me to make them more likely to just avoid, ignore, or even resent such talk of change.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#63

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:37 AM UTC

jamesrcole wrote: post #49

danharaj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you understood who Ray Blanchard is you would understand that it is. Insofar as a negative can have supporting evidence.

[EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options c…

The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#64

Post by Gatsky » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:43 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #62

Gatsky wrote: post #46

Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include…

I can't seem to figure out the incentives behind [2], the idea that during door-to-door canvassing only gay people can be effective at changing non-gay people's minds about same-sex marriage seems like an odd narrative for someone to want to push. Other than encouraging employment of gay individuals by political campaigns/canvassers or maybe a general superiority complex, by stating that only gay people are capable o…

If you are talking about the seeming 'wokeness' of this research well yes, that is probably a fair comment. But that would be fine if they actually did a proper experiment. I don't think it is a coincidence that particularly woke research may be of poor quality. I agree with you that a strong idealogical bias is a hazard to generating truth. This is most pertinent in preventing certain types of research from being performed or results from being released. This is mostly a problem for psychology and sociology, which among their other merits have limited impact on actual life.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#65

Post by stallmanite » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:52 AM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #60

vore wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing the DSM-5's redefinition of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria as academics "not having a spine" and not "real science" is a disgustingly transphobic opinion, whether you intend it to be or not. This isn't an empirical science. We shouldn't keep shitty and harmful labels on people who are deeply struggling with their identity.

> " We shouldn't keep shitty and harmful labels on people who are deeply struggling with their identity. " But the same argument could equally be applied to a group with a dysphoria that everybody loves to mock: furries. How would you make your statement work for a specific dysphoria and not every other dysphorias? (Maybe it should work for every dysphoria? I'd be okay with that since it's a logically consistent view…

But doesn’t there exist a plausible biological pathway for transsexuals to develop a brain structure similar to the opposite sex whereas no similar plausible biological basis can be proposed for having developed the brain of a fictional anthropomorphic animal?

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#66

Post by jamesrcole » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #63

jamesrcole wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options c…

The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

> The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine".

sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community."

The claim that both of these people were talking about, concerned academics being harassed and as a result being scared off.

And just because that one person was involved, doesn't mean that other people weren't scared off.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#67

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

jamesrcole wrote: post #49

danharaj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you understood who Ray Blanchard is you would understand that it is. Insofar as a negative can have supporting evidence.

[EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options c…

> not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment

If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.)

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#68

Post by tempestn » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:58 AM UTC

unishark wrote: post #48

tempestn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being down voted. Maybe just tone with the 'hmmmmm' and such. Anyway, I agree that there appears to be ample evidence for this conclusion.

wasn't me who downvoted, but my guess is it's because of the guideline against commenting on whether someone read the article.

Ah, yes, I missed that.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#69

Post by SubiculumCode » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:59 AM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #46

Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include…

I think that early social psychology had a problem with misusing statistics(not necessarily with fraudulent intention) , but I do not believe this extends to psychology, psychiatry, cognitive sciences more generally.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#70

Post by jamesrcole » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #67

jamesrcole wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options c…

> not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, appl…

> If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion.

Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment.

And that doesn't mean other people weren't scared off. Different people have different tolerances for harassment, and differing degrees to which they want to be involved in a particular matter.

> You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.