We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#2Reach for an extra-large grain of salt whenever the nightly news trumpets some new breakthrough in the psychological field.
Continue avoiding psychologists whenever possible.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#3Sneaking suspicion that this will readily extend to other soft sciences, particularly sociology.
A good chunk of our social and educational policy is informed by psychology and sociology.
Since we have all grown up within various systems and institutions that have been largely informed by bad research, it's unlikely much will happen, since we see the claims made by these charlatans to be normal or common sense.
Nonetheless, it will be amusing watching the charlatans try to defend themselves in the coming years.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#4[deleted]
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#5You could tell me what this is: http://imgur.com/HLAfj64 ... Specifically the coil array is a WTF. Coil array is for parallel MRI via only RF [radio] - University of Colorado - google
I studied mercury for about a month and was horrified by some facts. Specifically it was known to cause mental illness since 500BC, and how to make a mercury mine more profitable than a gold mine: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/171588
causation:
The problem with mercury is its a radio/electric conductor. Innoculations used since 1700 to prevent disease. Mercury added to vaccine in 1920. Discovered in 1930 and 1960 Brain Axons (nerves) use electrical impulse. Mercury could create a literal short circuit. image explantation: http://imgur.com/B9OVJOY
Mercury (vaccines) was known to cause mental illness, breathing disorder, and heavy metal toxicity since 500 BC [dartmouth tox history mercury]
Mercury is a metal, and is excitable by radio. radio is a form of radiation. the earth is a big ball of radiation. therefore the mercury will always be excited.
------------
You could try shielding: EMF sensitivity is a thing. My schizophrenia gone for $1 of foil and earplugs.
Mylar blankets ($3 from amazon) could block light(laser), emf (magnets), microwave radio and radar
Air ionizers or orgonite or negative ion projectors could block negative ions
Earplugs and stuff will block low frequency sound (mind control) and the freq men make
-----------
We should ask why the previous treatments for mental illness were barbaric [US superme court testimonies]
Lithium (a poison so toxic its used to kill unkillable cancer cells)
Shock torture
Lobotomy
Hand crank drilling a hole in the skull to drain blood
--------------
We should ask why theres so much chemicals in the food: https://medium.com/@bananaguy80/the-great-filter-theory-are-...
We should ask why the newspapers silence this stuff. Why my congress men has an unlisted email, his contact form is broken, doesnt answer emails, facebook etc.
And then get guns for your bull E.T.s.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#6I actually have an answer for this:
Stop talking about "psychology" like it's a monolithic thing. Start by separating "hard" psychology (perception, attention, psychophysics, etc) from social psychology.
Papers about saccadic adaptation are, I suspect, much more reproducible than those about implicit association.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#7One small suggestion: Eliminate "published and outa here," the policy where students have to publish their MS and Phd work in order to receive those degrees. All that does is to fill the journals with crap.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#8I actually have an answer for this: Stop talking about "psychology" like it's a monolithic thing. Start by separating "hard" psychology (perception, attention, psychophysics, etc) from social psychology. Papers about saccadic adaptation are, I suspect, much more reproducible than those about implicit association.
The OSC Science paper separates cognitive and social psychology papers and journals, and cognitive psychology papers replicate at about twice the rate of social psychology papers. But still only a bit more than half of the cognitive papers replicate, so I think there are still deeper issues.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#9Redistribute most of the $5 billion dollars of psychology and behavioral-related NIH research funding to historically high ROI areas like infectious disease research.
Re: We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
#10I actually have an answer for this: Stop talking about "psychology" like it's a monolithic thing. Start by separating "hard" psychology (perception, attention, psychophysics, etc) from social psychology. Papers about saccadic adaptation are, I suspect, much more reproducible than those about implicit association.
The OSC Science paper separates cognitive and social psychology papers and journals, and cognitive psychology papers replicate at about twice the rate of social psychology papers. But still only a bit more than half of the cognitive papers replicate, so I think there are still deeper issues.
But still only a bit more than half of the cognitive papers replicate, so I think there are still deeper issues.
That puts them in the general level of quality for all bio-medical research, so, yeah, deeper issues indeed, but I find it fascinating that this sub-group is so good.