Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#81

Post by greazy »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #41
zetazzed wrote: post #34

Individual researchers have huge incentives for fraud, but large universities are the ones who most need to look inward here. HBS could become a beacon for stronger research practices in this area - requiring study preregistration and data collection methods that carefully trace provenance and changes. If HBS has fewer but better quirky marketing psychology studies, their reputation will do well. However for an indiv…

For similar reasons, I left academia. I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. But it turned out that academia doesn’t really do this anymore, it just sells itself as doing these things. Academia is entirely a “reputation” system, as it turns out, from paper publishing to student-evaluations to “public rankings.” As it turns out, the capitalist marketplace must also contend with the…

Wait a second, the blog which is bringing to light these issues is by academics who ARE seeking the truth.

As someone in academia (very different field than Behavioral psych), I'm very cautious of people who say overgeneralised hyperbole such as:

> I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing.

Because doing science is not clear concise straight forward exercise people envision.

(Science has major systemic issues but that's besides my point)

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#82

Post by taeric »

m463 wrote: post #31
wittjeff wrote: post #17

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely , author of (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies, later accused of data fraud and academic misconduct.

I read his dishonesty book and now I wonder if any of it is actually wrong (although most of it made sense at the time)

There are few things out there as dangerous as arguments that "make sense." Lots of things can do that, all while being rather flawed.

I am curious to know more on this one. Odd to see so much pointing fingers happening. I'm guessing that isn't as rare as I would assume it is?

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#83

Post by otikik »

93po wrote: post #79
bwestergard wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear more about how you've found more honesty in the private sector. "academia doesn’t really do this anymore" I've heard this from more than one current or former academic. Some argue it's due to market logic entering academia. It sounds like you take a different view?

I have no idea what I'm talking about but I would speculate that looking at how.much.freaking.money these schools have provides us a window into what these schools actually focus on. The focus seems to be making and having a ton of money. This compounded by the trends we see in fewer tenure positions, worse pay for associate profs, a glut of admin positions and admin pay, etc. So yeah, I'd say the observation that ma…

Ah, you meant it the same way that a thief is more honest that a corrupt politician. At least the first one is honest about what it does.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#84

Post by CoastalCoder »

WalterBright wrote: post #47
rqtwteye wrote: post #43

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

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.

Question from a non-student of philosophy:

Why do people use the term "ethical" as though there were a single agreed-upon "right" system of ethics?

My understanding is that there are numerous concepts of right and wrong, some of which are very divisive.

So i.e. there are people who would be widely detested for being "ethical" in unfashionable frameworks.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#85

Post by operatingthetan »

greazy wrote: post #81
IggleSniggle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For similar reasons, I left academia. I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. But it turned out that academia doesn’t really do this anymore, it just sells itself as doing these things. Academia is entirely a “reputation” system, as it turns out, from paper publishing to student-evaluations to “public rankings.” As it turns out, the capitalist marketplace must also contend with the…

Wait a second, the blog which is bringing to light these issues is by academics who ARE seeking the truth. As someone in academia (very different field than Behavioral psych), I'm very cautious of people who say overgeneralised hyperbole such as: > I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. Because doing science is not clear concise straight forward exercise people envision. (Science…

> I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing.

I assume they said this from a position of naïveté and then after joining academia realized it was incorrect. I'm not sure we should use that to suggest a defect in character.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#86

Post by lumost »

zetazzed wrote: post #34

Individual researchers have huge incentives for fraud, but large universities are the ones who most need to look inward here. HBS could become a beacon for stronger research practices in this area - requiring study preregistration and data collection methods that carefully trace provenance and changes. If HBS has fewer but better quirky marketing psychology studies, their reputation will do well. However for an indiv…

I suspect this is also why large industrial ML labs have mixed productivity. My observation has been that people decide that a problem is important because someone high up thought it was important. The researchers using the methodology that shows the largest offline impact are rewarded - not those with the most rigorous finding.

This creates a strong incentive to fudge the results and never ship anything. I knew of one scientist who figured out you could just fake the entire thing and skip the work part. He coasted for 5 years doing this.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#87

Post by Anthony-G »

jamessb wrote: post #4

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

The first blog post would have been a much better submission than the Financial Times article.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#88

Post by golergka »

lumost wrote: post #86
zetazzed wrote: post #34

Individual researchers have huge incentives for fraud, but large universities are the ones who most need to look inward here. HBS could become a beacon for stronger research practices in this area - requiring study preregistration and data collection methods that carefully trace provenance and changes. If HBS has fewer but better quirky marketing psychology studies, their reputation will do well. However for an indiv…

I suspect this is also why large industrial ML labs have mixed productivity. My observation has been that people decide that a problem is important because someone high up thought it was important. The researchers using the methodology that shows the largest offline impact are rewarded - not those with the most rigorous finding. This creates a strong incentive to fudge the results and never ship anything. I knew of o…

What happened after 5 years? Did he get caught? Or just founded his own unicorn ai startup

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#89

Post by fasterik »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #84
WalterBright wrote: post #47

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.

Question from a non-student of philosophy: Why do people use the term "ethical" as though there were a single agreed-upon "right" system of ethics? My understanding is that there are numerous concepts of right and wrong, some of which are very divisive. So i.e. there are people who would be widely detested for being "ethical" in unfashionable frameworks.

It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be judged in the context of a certain time, place, and set of cultural practices.

Re: Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty

#90

Post by ct0 »

lumost wrote: post #86
zetazzed wrote: post #34

Individual researchers have huge incentives for fraud, but large universities are the ones who most need to look inward here. HBS could become a beacon for stronger research practices in this area - requiring study preregistration and data collection methods that carefully trace provenance and changes. If HBS has fewer but better quirky marketing psychology studies, their reputation will do well. However for an indiv…

I suspect this is also why large industrial ML labs have mixed productivity. My observation has been that people decide that a problem is important because someone high up thought it was important. The researchers using the methodology that shows the largest offline impact are rewarded - not those with the most rigorous finding. This creates a strong incentive to fudge the results and never ship anything. I knew of o…

Same goes for politics. Grant money available on partisan issues is quite the motivator too. I was doing research on a researcher and publisher at rutgers: https://gunviolenceresearchcenter.rutgers.edu/mike-anestis-p... and was surprised to learn how much funding him and his team has received. Literally millions, much more than small market research firms.
Post reply on HN