I came here for a procrastination joke comment and didn't find it, but I suppose someone will get around to it eventually.
Here's one. I always leave my procrastination for later.
Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
111–120 of 274 posts
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#112[dead]
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#113No paper should ever be referenced until it has been replicated by an independent group. The replication crisis in science is real, and it won't take long for no one to believe anything anymore.
That rule would make it difficult to report on a failure to replicate a published paper.
If the failure is replicated by multiple groups, that would be reportable.
Otoh, not sure that anyone wants to read a report that some finding that nobody reported on couldn't be replicated.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#114Dan 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…
At this point the surprising part isn't that another Ariely result has problems, it's that some of these datasets apparently went decades without this kind of basic scrutiny
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#115Dan 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 per…
I'd be pretty wary of stretching wire fraud law to cover this. Prosecutors deciding whether scientific results are fraudulent sounds like it could create its own set of ugly incentives
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're basically replacing the label "procrastination" with the label "laziness" without understanding anything. Are all people who postpone a task lazy? What constitutes laziness? Can we define laziness? Why are people lazy? Is laziness negative? Are there positive aspects to laziness? Why did we evolve laziness? Are people consistently lazy, or are they only lazy in some areas of their lives? Does scrubbing a toile…
I don't even think procrastination is laziness as you end up having to do the work later.
Not if you're procrastinating on the right things.
Defered tasks are sometimes completed by others, or otherwise become obsolete while you wait.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#117It does seem like its way too easy to do this kind of fraud. The study seems extremely easy to replicate (no fancy equipment needed, just ask some people to proofread), and yet nobody did until now. Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Assign undergrads to replicate random research papers?
[dead]
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#118It does seem like its way too easy to do this kind of fraud. The study seems extremely easy to replicate (no fancy equipment needed, just ask some people to proofread), and yet nobody did until now. Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Assign undergrads to replicate random research papers?
Replication is unpaid QA on someone else's product. Nobody gets tenure for finding the bug, hence the field has been meaning to get around to it for 20 years.
And the incentives are arguably worse than QA: you get little credit if the result replicates, and potentially a lot of grief if it doesn't. Novel results build careers. Checking them mostly doesn't
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#119Earlier 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.
No, that would never happen. People would just be skeptical of most findings until they see replications (where we are headed in the social sciences, anyway). If people see replications the original discoverer will get all the accolades, not the (several) replications.
Or maybe we shouldnt call anything "science" until it assumes replication of foundational results.
Physics solved this quite some time ago.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#120I came here for a procrastination joke comment and didn't find it, but I suppose someone will get around to it eventually.
> I came here for a procrastination joke comment and didn't find it, but I suppose someone will get around to it eventually.
Too soon; they'll all do it later.