11–20 of 209 posts
That's weak-- accused. Also, who cares if they did lie? Knowing about dishonesty is not the same as positioning oneself as a beacon for morality. This is not front-page HN worthy material.
"Harvard dishonesty expert dishonestly accused of dishonesty"
That's weak-- accused. Also, who cares if they did lie? Knowing about dishonesty is not the same as positioning oneself as a beacon for morality. This is not front-page HN worthy material.
The FT article says: 'A group of academics who compile the Data Colada blog about the evidence behind behavioural science has started publishing a series of posts in which they say they will detail “evidence of fraud in four academic papers” co-authored by Gino'. The first two of these blog posts are: https://datacolada.org/109 https://datacolada.org/110
> students approached this “Year in School” question in a number of different ways. For example, a junior might have written “junior”, or “2016” or “class of 2016” or “3” (to signify that they are in their third year). All of these responses are reasonable.
> A less reasonable response is “Harvard” [...] Nevertheless, the data file indicates that 20 students did so. Moreover, and adding to the peculiarity, those students’ responses are all within 35 rows (450 through 484) of each other in the posted dataset
In addition, of these 20 very suspicious rows, most were strongly confirming the hypothesis of the authors.
Likewise the first link shows that, in a spreadsheet containing outcomes sorted by treatment group, someone had manually moved rows from the span of rows containing one kind of treatment to a span containing outcomes from a different treatment. These provably manually reordered rows also contained most of the strong evidence for the predicted effect...
That's weak-- accused. Also, who cares if they did lie? Knowing about dishonesty is not the same as positioning oneself as a beacon for morality. This is not front-page HN worthy material.
> Also, who cares if they did lie
They didn't just lie, they tampered with collected data used for scientific research, harming their co-authors' work and reputation and giving fake leads to their field of study, thus wasting their peers' time spent on reproducing the case. It may also have had an effect on promotions that their peers should have gotten and on the way people got managed, based on these behavioral studies.
Also the evidence collection displayed in another reply is technically interesting.
The title is clickbait in the sense that it suggests that we should expect this person to be super honest, and instead they were found to be dishonest. On the contrary, I think we should expect them to be dishonest, and they are. They literally have a book named “Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life”, what did you expect? Of course they're dishonest.
We have decided we are a post-truth society. Turns out solving that problem is non-trivial when we rely on experts that are themselves human who view the world as post-truth.
I suspect most lies are just short term convinces.
We have decided we are a post-truth society. Turns out solving that problem is non-trivial when we rely on experts that are themselves human who view the world as post-truth.
What has changed in the past 2000 years is the availability of information. Nothing is 100% true other than defined Universal constants. Everything else is on a spectrum. Those that want to get closer to 100% truth have many tools to get them along. Those that don't care can ask ChatGPT and get something 25% true. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. That's just how people are, and AI isn't really changing that.