61–70 of 209 posts
Oh look, her primary field is Behavioral Science. I'm shocked. Really. /s
Maybe he is to blame, but the social sciences in general are inherently vulnerable to this sort of problem. There have been many instances of similar incidents over the past few decades or so. not just overt academic fraud but misconstruction of data, excel errors, poor methodology, publication bias, etc. This calls into doubt if anything in the social sciences can really be trusted.
"We understand that Harvard had access to much more information than we did, including, where applicable, the original data collected using Qualtrics survey software. If the fraud was carried out by collecting real data on Qualtrics and then altering the downloaded data files, as is likely to be the case for three of these papers, then the original Qualtrics files would provide airtight evidence of fraud. (Conversely, if our concerns were misguided, then those files would provide airtight evidence that they were misguided.)"
It does not appear that Harvard found any evidence that they were misguided...
Adding to the irony: She is the best-selling author, most recently, of “Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life.”
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.
We've always been a post-truth society. I think it's just how humans are. We want easy answers, and if there are none, we invent them. I don't think that the human from 1AD is better than the human from 2023AD for example. What we used to blame on God we now blame on 5G or whatever. Same stuff, different details. What has changed in the past 2000 years is the availability of information. Nothing is 100% true other th…
Nicely put, because it explains the widespread disappointment in journalism, media, academia that don't even seem to try anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered if ethics class impart any ethics at all. If you're not an ethical person, why would you become one after taking such a class? If you're already an ethical person, taking a class in it is pointless.
Ethical theory is an interesting subject in its own right. Even if studying it doesn't make you a better person, that doesn't make it useless, any more than studying abstract areas of math or physics is useless. That being said, some work in practical ethics has had a huge impact. Peter Singer's work on animal ethics started the modern animal rights movement, and his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" has inspir…
There is this pattern where things are always the opposite of their message: - Dishonesty expert is dishonest - Politicians who constantly talk about freedom want to restrict anything that doesn't fit their world view - Militant anti-gay preachers hire call boys - Diversity teams are the least diverse
There is this pattern where things are always the opposite of their message: - Dishonesty expert is dishonest - Politicians who constantly talk about freedom want to restrict anything that doesn't fit their world view - Militant anti-gay preachers hire call boys - Diversity teams are the least diverse
e.g. Innovation Managers have most likely never done an innovative thing in their life
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.
Well, this way, we could have a followup story next week: "Harvard dishonesty expert dishonestly accused of dishonesty"