Quoted post unavailable.
got dumped by a psychologist?
Dude. Psychologist still study Froyd.
That's like doctors studying phrenology or physicst studying phlogiston. Outside of a history lesson of what not to do, it's not really useful.
Rebuilding after the replication crisis
11–20 of 76 posts
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
got dumped by a psychologist?
Dude. Psychologist still study Froyd. That's like doctors studying phrenology or physicst studying phlogiston. Outside of a history lesson of what not to do, it's not really useful.
Physicists still study aether, but that doesn't mean it's taken as fact. Understanding where ideas and notation came from and how a field has grown to it's current state is important.
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#13>One of my formative experiences as a PhD student, in 2011, was submitting a replication study to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, only to be told that the journal did not publish replications under any circumstances (you might be thinking, “WTF?” — and we were too). A while back, I asked a psychology professor why replication studies were frowned upon. She said something like "studies need to be uni…
What is the significance of Amy cuddy to this discussion?
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#14Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#15>One of my formative experiences as a PhD student, in 2011, was submitting a replication study to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, only to be told that the journal did not publish replications under any circumstances (you might be thinking, “WTF?” — and we were too). A while back, I asked a psychology professor why replication studies were frowned upon. She said something like "studies need to be uni…
What is the significance of Amy cuddy to this discussion?
Per her Wikipedia [0], she authored papers about the debunked power posing.
> The theory is often cited as an example of the replication crisis in psychology, in which initially seductive theories cannot be replicated in follow-up experiments.
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#16How could any replication study sample from the same pattern of people, given that there are so many cultures with different ways of living, eating, spending time etc. All of these cultures also constantly change. Universal representativity is unattainable, so any replication will have a number of unknown sample variables that changed. This is still not highlighted enough in most papers I read.
If the result isn't stable across samples how valid is the result?
If the study otherwise follows best practices, results about differences between well-defined subpopulations, and the reasons behind them, are still worthwhile to investigate and report.
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude. Psychologist still study Froyd. That's like doctors studying phrenology or physicst studying phlogiston. Outside of a history lesson of what not to do, it's not really useful.
Physicists still study aether, but that doesn't mean it's taken as fact. Understanding where ideas and notation came from and how a field has grown to it's current state is important.
Neither psychologists nor physicists study Freud or aether.
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#18>One of my formative experiences as a PhD student, in 2011, was submitting a replication study to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, only to be told that the journal did not publish replications under any circumstances (you might be thinking, “WTF?” — and we were too). A while back, I asked a psychology professor why replication studies were frowned upon. She said something like "studies need to be uni…
What does money matter once a study is already done? Finding the right incentive balance between novelty and rigor isn't trivial, I get the debate surrounding grant funding. But there should be 0 debate from the perspective of what is publishable, given that it's already done.
My guess is part of the resistance is fear from established PIs that their work won't actually replicate. Even if a minority of profs, I suspect some of the most famous and powerful ones have cut corners or equivocated at one point or another, to get to where they are. It's easy for many other PIs to then get swept up in the "opinion of the field".
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#19>One of my formative experiences as a PhD student, in 2011, was submitting a replication study to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, only to be told that the journal did not publish replications under any circumstances (you might be thinking, “WTF?” — and we were too). A while back, I asked a psychology professor why replication studies were frowned upon. She said something like "studies need to be uni…
Thanks for mentioning Amy Cuddy. I remembered her TED conference but hadn’t heard about her since. In the meantime, however, I’ve been exposed to the academic world of social psychology. And I’m not surprised about the phenomenon of Amy Cuddy. I’ve seen a fair share of professors using a social psychology course to simply preach what could be called progressive ideology. The funny thing is I entered the field with progressive views myself, but I’m growing more and more confused seeing the bad faith on display.
Re: Rebuilding after the replication crisis
#20Useful background, if you aren't familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Noteworthy is that the crisis is a huge deal in Psychology - a field which "real" scientists were sneering at a century or more ago.
Personal anecdote:
I once knew a guy who majored in Psychology at a pretty prestigious U.S. research university, back in the mid 1980's. He said that the Psych Dept. there did a big survey of Psych undergrads, asking what they thought of the subject. The most significant finding? That the Psych majors thought the first 2 years of Psych classes were real facts about the real world. But after that - they thought that it was all bullsh*t, and learning how create and spew bullsh*t yourself. (The guy went on to law school, and was quite successful. Which could be interpreted in interesting ways.)