151–160 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can hear the police response now. “Why are you so angry about me accusing you of committing such a heinous crime that may even bear the death penalty if you didn’t do it?”
"Because it's insulting that you think so lowly of me!"
Then you proceed to say nothing, no matter how much they're trying to provoke you. You also get a phone call
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you could discard any study under that rationale among others. And the interesting thing is you'd likely be far more 'informed' for doing so. Social psychology has the lowest replication rate of any field. You're looking at top journals with replication rates in the twenties. [1] What this means is that if you were to take any give study in social psychology, and simply assume it was 'wrong' (either saying the o…
I don't want to discount the replication crisis, but I'd like to ask you the same question again: how, specifically, do you design any psychological study that you can't discard with "well, they could be faking it"?
> Intriguingly, the criminal false events seemed to be just as believable as the emotional ones. Students tended to provide the same number of details, and reported similar levels of confidence, vividness, and sensory detail for the two types of event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only matters if the truth is a major consideration. Some theories of justice don't care, as long as social order is maintained.
> as long as social order is maintained That would rely on the participants believing that truth is the major consideration, right? If I knew that I would have to prove my innocence, that would lead to a lot of overhead for self surveillance and documentation. Ie. If the custom of just accepting false confessions becomes a widely accepted practice it could potentially lead to reduction of social order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not the only one I can think of, but no other options have been presented to me. Well, then, with all due respect, if you already know of other options, why are you asking? > I'm asking how we could measure your idea Who cares? Even if you cannot "measure" (whatever that means) the alternatives, the fact still remains that people are drawing conclusions from incorrect and invalid data. That's the point, really…
> Well, then, with all due respect, if you already know of other options, why are you asking? If someone engages in a conversation with me and presents a thought, I would like them to present it fully. If there are obvious flaws or implications, I try to reflect them, both so I can be sure I correctly understood the other party, and to give them a chance to fill in those holes. I do not wish to just inject my own ide…
I was a research scientist[1] for 7 years of my 25 years of working experience.
What are your credentials?
> You are wrong. There, I said that you are wrong - does that make you wrong?
That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion.
We are not debating whether or not the research can be replicated, are we?
I mean, are you seriously claiming that psychology is filled with replicable studies?
[1] EDIT: an accredited national research institution.
I do not believe for a second you can convince any innocent person rhey have commites any serious crime unless they suffer from heavy amnesia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we just stop studying psychology completely?
Or the people undertaking these studies (and more importantly, the people peer reviewing and publishing the work) push back on broad conclusions that aren't substantiated by the research. Having seen the nonsense my partner has to put up with in order to get a post-graduate qualification to practice as a professional psychologist I'm not holding my breath. From where I'm sitting the replication crisis in this field l…
But these aren't broad conclusions, they are specific conclusions, and they are substantiated by the research. You're just positing that the results could be entirely fake on a whim.
Interesting that the entire article had nothing to mention about the Reid technique [1]. The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. In the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson [2], they cover false confessions in depth with a few court cases, as well as police techniques to invoke cognitive dissonance in the accused. Callout to…
Here's what the ideal interrogation looks like: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6RoKvC1qcEY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you could discard any study under that rationale among others. And the interesting thing is you'd likely be far more 'informed' for doing so. Social psychology has the lowest replication rate of any field. You're looking at top journals with replication rates in the twenties. [1] What this means is that if you were to take any give study in social psychology, and simply assume it was 'wrong' (either saying the o…
I don't want to discount the replication crisis, but I'd like to ask you the same question again: how, specifically, do you design any psychological study that you can't discard with "well, they could be faking it"?
Which is not to say that we should stop psychological research- not at all. But maybe we should not treat psychology in the same way we treat science. Specifically, we shouldn't be trying to apply the scientific method in psychological research. Applying the tools of science in a domain where no scientific questions can be answered is only going to produce noise and confusion.
I know that would really hurt psychologists' pride but, for example, philosophers are not considered scientists and yet their contributions to human knowledge are difficult to deny.
Similar points have been made much more forcefully in "Cargo Cult Science", but I don't want to be mean myself. I'm just trying to say that I think there's far better ways to do psychology than trying to do it like it's physics or chemistry.