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

261–270 of 273 posts

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#261

Post by rightnutwingjob »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #241
mike_hearn wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might not care even then. Journalism is an interesting case study. Their revenues went into sharp decline around the start of the century, dropping by more than 50% in some cases. Concurrently polls showed trust in journalism was plummeting, that people were tuning out because they felt that what they read wasn't reliable. Journalism didn't solve this problem by rebuilding trust and their audience. Instead they…

News reporting and journalism has always mostly been a for-profit enterprise. And no matter what business model one might choose (ads, subs, charity, etc) there will be perverse incentives working in conflict with pure truth seeking and newsworthiness. Audience capture, pleasing advertisers, the politics/interests of the owners, etc. I'm sure non-profit sponsorship has it's own issues, but I don't think those issues…

You’re not helping whatever it is you think you’re trying to achieve by calling everything you don’t like radical right-wing propaganda.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#264

Post by EA-3167 »

vjulian wrote: post #21
EA-3167 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’.

Scientists know that they don’t know everything and act accordingly, they don’t make claims for the efficacy of the things they don’t know.

People here routinely do.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#265

Post by Calazon »

coldtea wrote: post #129
Calazon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we need a new/updated law to cover this kind of thing. This sort of academic fraud should absolutely be criminalized, but I'm not sure I'm the biggest fan of the "everything is wire fraud" approach to achieving that.

If it gets so bad that a society/academic system needs to criminalize such fraud, they have already lost that race. The only thing that really works is a culture where this rarely if ever happens, because of the peer respect and self-respect of academics.

Sure, if culture were different, or human nature we different, we wouldn't have the problems we currently do.

However, given the culture we have, and the human tendencies we have, I think laws can make things better. Like criminalizing various sorts of fraud.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#266

Post by superxpro12 »

blackbear_ wrote: post #184
mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

This is unnecessarily cynical. > The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. You fell into the same trap by criticizing scientific institutions and the human spirit in an attempt to criticize the scientific method. > What exactly is the scientific method? What a ridiculous argument. What exactly is a hamburger? Just ask around and you will find that nobody agrees if a veggie burger should be consider…

Science is very simply a commitment towards objectivity. That's it. You see data, you conclude x,y, or z. and thats it. No external subjective influences changes the conclusions. If the data trends towards "vaccines saves millions of lives", thats it.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#268

Post by LorenPechtel »

mike_hearn wrote: post #256
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News reporting and journalism has always mostly been a for-profit enterprise. And no matter what business model one might choose (ads, subs, charity, etc) there will be perverse incentives working in conflict with pure truth seeking and newsworthiness. Audience capture, pleasing advertisers, the politics/interests of the owners, etc. I'm sure non-profit sponsorship has it's own issues, but I don't think those issues…

I think ads were better because everyone was aware of the conflict of interest issues and took steps to manage it. They admitted it could be an issue and would have internal firewalls where ad sales weren't allowed to talk to the journalists, things like that. Advertisers accepted it because their goal wasn't to manipulate news reporting. The problem with the "philanthropic" funding is not only is there no firewall,…

There certainly are problems, but the biggest is that reality puts two other factors ahead of publishing the truth:

1) People don't like having their beliefs challenged. This will slant all news organizations towards the biases of their readers. We see this at all levels. The shorter and more personalized the feedback loop the faster it happens. This makes the news with things like ChatGPT, the feedback is very quick and personalized so it's very easy for people to tumble down the rabbit hole. Same thing, slower, with social media recommendation engines. And online hate communities--they lead people to extremes. But it also happens with traditional media, just much more diffuse. Everybody moves away from the center.

2) News organizations care very much about being able to get images and video of events. This means they are readily manipulated by restricting access to those who report the locally-approved version of the "facts". We used to understand that "news" from Russia was the state-sponsored version, we don't pay attention to the fact that "news" from areas with Islamist control are just about as bad.

And news is always slanted towards the side of controversy. No controversy, people aren't going to care.

However, this does not remotely mean that the right wing news is better. The reality is that it's even worse. All the same forces are at work and then there's an ideological bias on top of that. With news having become a la carte I doubt there's any way to remain in business as an honest news source anymore.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#269

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #261
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News reporting and journalism has always mostly been a for-profit enterprise. And no matter what business model one might choose (ads, subs, charity, etc) there will be perverse incentives working in conflict with pure truth seeking and newsworthiness. Audience capture, pleasing advertisers, the politics/interests of the owners, etc. I'm sure non-profit sponsorship has it's own issues, but I don't think those issues…

You’re not helping whatever it is you think you’re trying to achieve by calling everything you don’t like radical right-wing propaganda .

Radical right-wing infotainment propaganda is a specific set of things (like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News), not "everything I don't like"

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#270

Post by oldgradstudent »

fn-mote wrote: post #49
dash2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the post is ambiguous: did the authors want the original article retracted, or the replication by Hyndman and Bisin? I hope the former! "Finally, it should be noted that when we shared these posts with Ariely and Wertenbroch a few weeks ago, they reached out to Psychological Science to request that the article be retracted. As of this writing, that process is ongoing."

The post is unambiguous if you make it to the very end, where there are particular statements from each of the people involved. Look for: > Klaus Wertenbroch […] indicated that he has asked the editor to retract the paper.

That's pathetic.

How did he agree to be a co-author when "he never had access to the data for any of the studies"?

Post reply on HN