91–100 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this whole experimental paradigm is inherently unfixable.
So we just stop studying psychology completely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should indeed be extremely skeptical of studies whose only dependent variable is a voluntary participant response and where the participant has an incentive to tell the experimenter what they think they want to hear (for example, to make the experiment end faster).
How would you propose, in this specific study, they verify what you want? Please be specific regarding what questions you want asked, when they should be asked, and how these questions can't be discarded by saying "well, they could be faking it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think trying to do apply this finding to an ongoing injustice is more urgent than cataloguing the failings of a defunct state.
You are welcome to add those points to the discussion but right now all we have a statement of, ‘but… but… they do it too!’. I appreciate the downvote though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this whole experimental paradigm is inherently unfixable.
So we just stop studying psychology completely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took a cursory look through the Reid technique. It's literally just modern gaslighting.
Well, it's a highly developed and systematized form of gaslighting. A significant technological advancement over the common amateur gaslighting. Like the machinegun isn't just another musket. Consider the progress of technology in the field of lying, bullshit and propaganda. We've been developing that stuff for literally thousands of years. It has surely been refined to such a height as to be nigh-perfectly secret, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to discount the replication crisis, but I'd like to ask you the same question again: how, specifically, do you design any psychological study that you can't discard with "well, they could be faking it"?
Measure changes in something the test subject isn't expecting and wouldn't realize they need to fake? E.g. if you had to sit in the waiting room for 5 extra minutes, your test score changes like this. Measure differences below conscious control, like reaction speed to positive/negative/etc words after exposure to certain inputs.
This study was immediately critiqued for distorted results due to the way the researchers interpreted the data. "We used three different approaches to recode their data. Using Shaw and Porter's approach, we replicated their 70%. Using alternative approaches that distinguish between false beliefs and memories, we found 26-30% of subjects met the criteria for false memories. Moreover, we showed that laypeople’s underst…
Law enforcement has their quotas and they'll use any garbage they can to fill it, but it's kind of hilarious that people just trust their memories for important stuff they can control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Measure changes in something the test subject isn't expecting and wouldn't realize they need to fake? E.g. if you had to sit in the waiting room for 5 extra minutes, your test score changes like this. Measure differences below conscious control, like reaction speed to positive/negative/etc words after exposure to certain inputs.
This is too vague. Hiw would you test this hypothesys, that this stidu is teating, by measuring such unrelated signals?