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

If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 238 posts

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#41

Post by notsureaboutpg »

hpoe wrote: post #34
bluetomcat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People" sciences like sociology, psychology and economics can make incredibly misleading claims because one experiment over a small sample of people at a certain moment in time might seem to support a claim, while the actual reason for the observed results is a factor which is never taken in consideration. On the other hand, conducting those experiments over wider demographics and in different points in time means t…

Honestly all sociology I have seen or been exposed to, including in college, seems to be more interested in acting as a platform to push specific ideas, rather than an attempt to find truth. Beyond that those involved in sociology seem to believe that a study is the same thing as an experiment and like to believe that constitutes proof. Ultimately we can't really run AB experiments on society at large because we are…

I felt this way as well. But you might benefit from reading more old school sociology books.

C. Wright Mills The Sociological Imagination is great (should have been taught in college to you). Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class is good as well. These really seemed to me like attempts to approach truth, and perhaps that's because of the time they were written in vs the time we live in now.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#42

Post by hpoe »

Tarsul wrote: post #2

I still don't understand why we "believed" studies that claimed knowledge about typical behavior and subconscious decisions while those studies were only based on a single experiment with limited participants, e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment. These type of studies should ALWAYS be looked at critically and not just because they fail to reproduce but because they are based on a very small sample size in a very discreet…

They are believed because they are sensational, they are titillating, and it gives people the excuse for their bad behavior by believing that everyone would be a monster in the right circumstances.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#44

Post by trutannus »

mellavora wrote: post #17
burnte wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious biases don't count as valid moral objections. Religion has a strong negative effect on critical thinking skills (1, 2). If you dogs/pigs/shellfish/mixed-fabrics are inherently unclean or that women are property, your objections to a dating website are probably not going to have seriousl scientific ramifications. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742220/ 2. https://www.google.com/search?q=Reli…

Ok, I have some reason to agree with you, but if we rule out religion as a valid basis for morality, what do you suggest we replace it with?

There's a pile of different ethical frameworks. So likely work with a few of them and factor them all in when making decisions.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#46

Post by stevetodd »

Reading the other comments about the lack of integrity in scientific research that they’ve witnessed, is it any wonder why people might be skeptical about important issues like climate change, vaccines, masks, etc? There’s great research being done and a larger part of the population is becoming more and more skeptical because lies are being published and touted. Science needs to clean its house.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#47

Post by dash2 »

hpoe wrote: post #34
bluetomcat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People" sciences like sociology, psychology and economics can make incredibly misleading claims because one experiment over a small sample of people at a certain moment in time might seem to support a claim, while the actual reason for the observed results is a factor which is never taken in consideration. On the other hand, conducting those experiments over wider demographics and in different points in time means t…

Honestly all sociology I have seen or been exposed to, including in college, seems to be more interested in acting as a platform to push specific ideas, rather than an attempt to find truth. Beyond that those involved in sociology seem to believe that a study is the same thing as an experiment and like to believe that constitutes proof. Ultimately we can't really run AB experiments on society at large because we are…

I think you are naive about history.

I'm an economist. If I threw away the half of the data that didn't support my findings, and got caught, I'd lose my job and never publish again. I'm pretty sure the same is true in other social sciences, such as psychology. This is true irrespective of the well-documented problems that the article describes, which certainly also apply in economics and elsewhere, to varying degrees.

By contrast, when historians are caught cutting sentences in half to prove their point, they don't lose their jobs. They don't even lose their Pulitzers: https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-his...

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#48

Post by theknocker »

In 1999, they at least thought they needed a model (as opposed to policy conclusions), i.e. they were at least actually attempting science. I don't know what this article is supposed to be or why I should care about some random guy's random polemic about some random paper.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#49

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

hpoe wrote: post #34
bluetomcat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People" sciences like sociology, psychology and economics can make incredibly misleading claims because one experiment over a small sample of people at a certain moment in time might seem to support a claim, while the actual reason for the observed results is a factor which is never taken in consideration. On the other hand, conducting those experiments over wider demographics and in different points in time means t…

Honestly all sociology I have seen or been exposed to, including in college, seems to be more interested in acting as a platform to push specific ideas, rather than an attempt to find truth. Beyond that those involved in sociology seem to believe that a study is the same thing as an experiment and like to believe that constitutes proof. Ultimately we can't really run AB experiments on society at large because we are…

I don't disagree with you, but frankly would be a bit frustrating to limit one's studies of human behavior to just history without trying to understand the dynamics of current societies, trying to understand how they respond to change and so on. Both fields have a completely different set of instruments and very limited overlap.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#50

Post by Sr_developer »

publicola1990 wrote: post #26

Much of such dubious "science" is packaged by self help authours as miracle principles which are going to set ones life right. Popular books like "Power Of Habit" and Cal Newport's books also seem to fall into this category, and seem to enjoy huge patronage, even in HN.

There is a cottage industry of what you may call,if you feel uncharitable, bullshit peddlers:

Simon Sinek

Cal Newport

Charles Duhigg

Mark Manson

Ryan Hollyday

Malcolm Gladwell

The list is endless to be honest, they are each different on their own way but they have the following common points:

- They are on this for the money, so expect them to be always pushing their books, products, next book, next tour, next program.Hustling, hustling,hustling.

- Their grandiose pronouncements with little or not serious backing.

- Their unwarranted sense of speaking from a position of authority

- The over-simplication and stupid generalization of what it is messy, complex and very much unique.

Post reply on HN