151–160 of 209 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a distinction between understanding and practicing ethics. It's like taking a course on leadership vs being a good leader - some people might have a legitimate desire to be a good leader, but not know the best techniques; taking a course allows them to understand how to be a good leader so that they might become one. As another example, an atheist could study theology not to better practice religion but mere…
> Someone can likewise have every intention of being ethical, but just be bad at it. Is there really any empirical evidence that such people exist and could be helped by an ethics course? I think laymen [to ethics] with a desire to be ethical can generally go about being ethical with little more than the Golden Rule. And if somebody hasn't figured out the Golden Rule yet by the time of their mandatory ethics course i…
Yes. Many, many people (including me) don't speak up when we see someone else doing something wrong. These ethics courses not only drill home the point of the importance of speaking up, but helpfully give many mechanisms in which one can speak up anonymously, or otherwise in a protected manner.
A hypothetical of a situation the GP may have had in mind would be a person who is thinking of fudging or taking a shortcut, but doesn't want anything bad to happen. Ethics courses can show how minor deviations in ethical practice can have major impacts (jokingly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dWjKkF0Zi4 ). These courses can also show that actively stopping work for an ethical reason will not be punished or looked down on in any way. Because of this the person will feel confident in checking their initial impulse to fudge and instead do what's right.
Showing people how they can be ethical is just as important as showing them what ethics are. We don't need to be moral heroes in order to take more ethical action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it turned out that academia doesn’t really do this anymore, it just sells itself as doing these things. What do you mean by 'anymore'. Was there some golden age of bygone glory?
I'd argue there was to some extent. I mean psych has always had issues, but it seems from the late 1800's to the mid 1970's would characterize the golden age. During this time science that produced results and was verifiable and reproducible experienced a huge boom. In part because during this time period almost every nation on earth got involved at some point in a life or death struggle which turns to do a pretty go…
Compare also how even second rate people could do first rate work in the last fifteen years by applying deep learning to new domains.
You mention that war has a certain tendency to cut through bullshit. Ideally, market competition also does some of that. See https://gwern.net/backstop for a more general exploration:
> I suggest interpreting phenomenon as multi-level nested optimization paradigm: many systems can be usefully described as having two (or more) levels where a slow sample-inefficient but ground-truth ‘outer’ loss such as death, bankruptcy, or reproductive fitness, trains & constrains a fast sample-efficient but possibly misguided ‘inner’ loss which is used by learned mechanisms such as neural networks or linear programming group selection perspective.
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…
Provided that there are valuable things to discover in the field of quirky marketing psychology.
But if all they want to do is provide a regular supply of ammo to both sides of internal corporate conflicts on marketing strategy, and promote the consulting brand of their profs, their current approach is optimal.
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
Corporate entities with “innovation” in their titles are most definitely not innovative e.g. Innovation Managers have most likely never done an innovative thing in their life
TL;DR a number of different parties are stating pretty unequivocally that there is fraud here in her work; however, no evidence is presented for our inspection, so while I don't doubt it, it's just a lot of "he says/she also says". I'm not entirely clear on this but I don't think it's too wrong to say: the fraud concerns, for example, papers based on trials where people are asked to fill out questionnaires where some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My apologies for assuming it's a he: not sure exactly what of the rules do you think I broke, as I don't think I was snarky (sounds closest). I was mostly making fun of the language we humans tend to use sometimes: a car expert would be applying their expertise on cars, a botany expert would do it in botany, but it's not an "honesty expert" but a "dishonesty expert"? I do believe that's an interesting point to make,…
HN members are generally presumed to be familiar with standard tools for subverting paywalls (see also HN Guidelines). Or simply reading the comments thread to find such a workaround. In this case the paywall link is now at the top of the comments thread, though it was posted a few minutes after your own comment. Commenting that you didn't read the article, then making a series of shallow and incorrect assumptions ab…
My intent was to highlight an inconsistency in naming a skill with a negative connotation (dishonesty). How can I more explicitly direct the conversation to why is this skill a "dishonesty expertise" (or rather, an "expert on (ethics and) dishonesty")?
I still believe my actual point is "intellectually curious". What other skills are there that are like this? Is there a bad-at-sewing expert who's actually good at sewing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the second link: > 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 p…
It all suggests that, in addition to falsifying data, they had become so blase about falsifying data that they weren't particularly careful about it. Which suggests that they may have been falsifying data for a long time...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think around year 4 a manager made the mistake of believing the research and pushing hard on it. This in turn became a tracked goal with a multi-year timeline. The individual left before things could fall on them too heavily.
how do you work 4 years on a project before having a tracked goal. absurd. sounds like management's fault.