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

91–100 of 238 posts

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

#91

Post by reedjosh »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #12
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…

Same reason we believed eggs will give you heart disease. Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority.

Indeed! And in reality eggs are basically a superfood.

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

#92

Post by reedjosh »

programmarchy wrote: post #33
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.

I'd bet that even more dubious science is packaged by large corporate interests. Take Big Tobacco, who had doctors saying smoking is healthy, or the sugar industry, corrupting guidelines and policy on coronary heart disease [1]. And medicine is not immune either, with financial conflicts of interest and pharmaceutical sponsorships correlating with outcomes. [2] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/4…

Careful now... You might make someone skeptical of vaccines. /s

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

#93

Post by denimnerd42 »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #12
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…

Same reason we believed eggs will give you heart disease. Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority.

every mainstream thought about diet is untrustworthy to me due to the above type of example :/

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

#94

Post by mateo411 »

enkid wrote: post #8
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…

Tangent, but the Stanford Prison Experiment is an awful example of science. It was a researcher who wanted to prove a point and created the conditions to collect the data to prove that point. I hate that it's often the only psychological experiment many people are familiar with.

What about the Milgram experiment? This is also a very well known psychological experiment. Was the science behind the Milgram experiment rigorous?

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

#95

Post by Afton »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #73
ouid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could effectively argue that mathematics is a branch of philosophy.

You can construct proofs for mathematics, but not for the existence or refutation of a divine creator.

I think you have a narrow view of philosophy. Very little modern philosophy has anything to do with that kind of question.

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

#96

Post by splithalf »

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

Indeed. It is a scale problem. We have too many producers of research, too few destroyers of research, like Gelman. Show me the incentive and I can tell you the outcome. Encourage the whole world to become “experts” and then be amazed as the reverence and trust in expertise is devalued. That’s us.

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

#97

Post by bfors »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #73
ouid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could effectively argue that mathematics is a branch of philosophy.

You can construct proofs for mathematics, but not for the existence or refutation of a divine creator.

True, but with math you also eventually get down to axioms that can't be proven.

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

#98

Post by username90 »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #90
failwhaleshark wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been answered a million times before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

And it starts with that the terms are colloquial and bereft o an actually hard definition. “colloquial”, “roughly”, ”perceived”. — these are not the terms that definitions are made of. The point is that there is no actual hard distinction between “hard science” and “soft science” but there is a hard distinction between an exact theory, and an inexact theory.

There is no exact science, physics isn't an exact science either.

You need softer definitions like "Hard" and "Soft" precisely because there are no exact results in any science we have. And it is fine to use soft definitions for these things since categorising scientific fields doesn't need to be a science.

A hard science is where replication is expected to never fail, if replication fails once then the theory is thrown out. Applying that to social science studies would seem ridiculous, no social scientist would want that, so they want their field to be soft.

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

#99

Post by skybrian »

rafael_c wrote: post #68
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…

"On the other hand, conducting those experiments over wider demographics and in different points in time means that the study wants to build "universal" models of how each single person in the whole world acts, which is utterly dismissive of the specific local environment around people." I don't think building "universal models" or observing recurring patterns through analysis of 'experiments over wider demographics…

The problem is even more pervasive than that. There is an irresistible tendency to try to make universal statements rather than just sharing anecdotes and not generalizing from them.

Like, for example, I just made two universal statements, didn’t I?

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

#100

Post by 99_00 »

enkid wrote: post #8
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…

Tangent, but the Stanford Prison Experiment is an awful example of science. It was a researcher who wanted to prove a point and created the conditions to collect the data to prove that point. I hate that it's often the only psychological experiment many people are familiar with.

>the Stanford Prison Experiment is an awful example of science.

This may be true, but I don't think the evidence you give supports your assertion.

>It was a researcher who wanted to prove a point and created the conditions to collect the data to prove that point

"prove a point" is the hypothesis

"created the conditions" is the experiment

"collect the data to prove that point" is the observation

Post reply on HN