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

Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

datacolada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 274 posts

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#91

Post by rdtsc »

khy wrote: post #46
dgacmu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should - one of the papers that Data Colada reported on about Gino was co-authored with Dan Ariely: https://datacolada.org/98

She had sued Data Colada, I believe about that post. Seems like it got dismissed: https://www.science.org/content/article/honesty-researcher-s...

Oh wow. From your link

> The fallout from the saga is likely to continue. Simonsohn and several of Gino’s co-authors last year launched a project to assess the reliability of her past papers. So far, this has led to a further retraction in February and a correction in July. Science reported in April that Gino also appeared to have plagiarized passages of text in some of her publications.

It’s also hilarious how the judge let her continue the suit against Harvard. Like “hey I plagiarized fine, but you focused on my plagiarism more than others’ that not fair”. Even as more retractions due to plagiarism kept coming…

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#92

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Aurornis wrote: 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…

The fraud that Data Colada presents here is unambiguous. It was also no accident in my opinion that they are specifically mentioning that the 3 Excel files were “Last saved by” “Dan Ariely”

I'm sure the statute of limitations has expired for this, but I really wish the Feds would prosecute cases like this as wire fraud instead of leaving insular academic institutions to self-police. This type of fraud is done for personal gain and self-enrichment and causes real, identifiable harms.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#93

Post by p-e-w »

dpc050505 wrote: post #59
p-e-w wrote: 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…

Look up violet wands, you can shock humans with 0 training when it's a consensual hobby.

You can buy them without training, but that doesn’t mean you should be allowed to use them in a research setting on strangers without training.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#94

Post by contubernio »

rdtsc wrote: post #89
Aurornis wrote: 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…

Ah yes also the author of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty”. The most amazing thing is he is still a professor at Duke. Wonder if he focused much on academic dishonesty in his book…

Institutions like Duke benefit enormously from having people like this around. They can claim they have lots of highly cited and well published researchers, a bit of controversy is free publicity, etc. They make money off him and so they defend him. It helps support the myth that they are good educational institutions. US private universities are grift mills.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#96

Post by dyauspitr »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #58
Aurornis wrote: 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…

We'd find problems with many if not most published studies if we scutinized them the same way. People like him get discovered because they step out of their academic bubble into the light of the world stage. And mind you this is psychology, the entire discipline is only borderline scientific anyway. But even studies in the hard sciences are very often flawed if not outright fabricated. Adjusting data sets to fit the…

There is nothing scientific about psychology. There can be no science where everything is subjective.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#97

Post by d0mine »

jnwatson wrote: post #25
Aurornis wrote: 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.

Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#98

Post by rdtsc »

contubernio wrote: post #94
rdtsc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes also the author of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty”. The most amazing thing is he is still a professor at Duke. Wonder if he focused much on academic dishonesty in his book…

Institutions like Duke benefit enormously from having people like this around. They can claim they have lots of highly cited and well published researchers, a bit of controversy is free publicity, etc. They make money off him and so they defend him. It helps support the myth that they are good educational institutions. US private universities are grift mills.

This happens at any scale. Manager picks a bad candidate to join the team? Well now they are responsible for the decision. Their worth is tied to their bad decision and they will defend the bad choice to the detriment others on the team. So it’s an element of Duke also defending their honor since they invited and supposedly vetted him.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#99

Post by unloader6118 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #24
tempestn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Replicating superconductor experiment gives you the conductor and the skill.

Both of them are useful as is.

Replicating a social experiment, when successful, don't give you anything new.

Post reply on HN