Live data from Hacker News

Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

datacolada.org

21–30 of 265 posts

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#21
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we even accept anything as true without replication by default?

Why do people on this site love nutrition and self-medication fads? People are surprisingly thoughtless.

Because “science” doesn’t know everything, and people don’t want to wait until their options are scientifically-validated.

Yoga, breathing exercises, meditation and the like were once considered fads and derided by your ‘science’.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#22
post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

Reminds me of Francesca Gino for data fabrication. She was also a best seller of sorts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#23
post #15
post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

> In 2006, when he was a professor at the MIT Media Lab, Ariely conducted experiments including administering electric shocks with a research assistant who had no human–subject training. […] Ariely confirmed this and said that he wasn't aware that the research assistant did not have the needed one-hour online human–subject training. A one-hour online training is all that’s needed to be considered ready to conduct exp…

I don't know the details here but I am a psychologist.

The "electric shock" normally used in psych studies is tiny, it's like the equivalent of one of those little toy prank buzzers. You couldn't possibly hurt someone with it, this is really a non-issue.

Related side note: Electroconvulsive therapy uses much larger electric shocks but, administered safely by a clinic, is extremely safe, has relatively minor side effects compared to e.g. SSRIs, and is very effective for severe depression. It's a huge shame that it's undeserved reputation prevents it from being more popular. Blame "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for its inaccurate portrayal.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#24
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Sure. Pay them to do it.

If the culture shifted such that people were skeptical of original results but excited about replication, replication would be the big news and people would want to do it. How to get there, I don't know.

I seem to remember a lot of hype about room-temperature superconductors, that croaked upon [lack of] replication. That wasn't too long ago.

Before that, cold fusion.

We still have the ion drive that doesn't require fuel. I don't think it has ever been successfully replicated, but I think that it also hasn't been successfully repudiated, either.

This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. I suspect that not all of it is deliberate fraud, but rather, people wanting their preconceived bias to be satisfied.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#25
post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files".

Yikes.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#26
post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files". Yikes.

iirc Epstein funded the media lab and had an office there

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#28
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2006, when he was a professor at the MIT Media Lab, Ariely conducted experiments including administering electric shocks with a research assistant who had no human–subject training. […] Ariely confirmed this and said that he wasn't aware that the research assistant did not have the needed one-hour online human–subject training. A one-hour online training is all that’s needed to be considered ready to conduct exp…

I don't know the details here but I am a psychologist. The "electric shock" normally used in psych studies is tiny, it's like the equivalent of one of those little toy prank buzzers. You couldn't possibly hurt someone with it, this is really a non-issue. Related side note: Electroconvulsive therapy uses much larger electric shocks but, administered safely by a clinic, is extremely safe, has relatively minor side effe…

For what it’s worth, I wasn’t even thinking about the physical danger when I was… shocked… that you only need a one hour online course. It’s that they’re interacting with people in a somewhat clinical way as an implicit authority. The shock would obviously cause discomfort and therefore stress (or why even do it).

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#29
post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files". Yikes.

Context matters. Otherwise we’re just being clowns.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files". Yikes.

Context matters. Otherwise we’re just being clowns.

This. Significant portions of the Epstein files are random noise. Though even for a popularish author it'd be strange to be in enough 1990-2018 news snippets to reach that many EF hits. In any case "is in the Epstein files" should in general be replaced with "is in the Epstein files, including this email to/from them I found"
Post reply on HN