If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
1–10 of 238 posts
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#2I 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 scenario (and probably with participants who are not diverse).
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#3Psychological science is now thoroughly privatized. Don't read papers if this subject is of interest to your, look al big tech, ad tech, troll factories, influencer science, media consolidation, for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw).
Academics are thoroughly out of the loop on this one, as are we all incidentally.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#4Psychological science is now thoroughly privatized. Don't read papers if this subject is of interest to your, look al big tech, ad tech, troll factories, influencer science, media consolidation, for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw). Academics are thoroughly out of the loop on this one, as are we all incidentally.
I became a Data Scientist because in 3rd year, I found the OKCupid data blog and realized their research had methodological soundness these "20 undergraduate lab students forced to be there" research never would.
You trade 'shot-in-the-dark lab experiments' for 'a clear and obvious agenda'. The trick is to just make sure the agenda isn't morally reprehensible.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#5I 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…
Appeal to authority is a big reason. The academic leaders in the field were incentivized to find breakthroughs, or to treat any experiment they ran as a breakthrough, because that’s where their influence and reputation came from. People are so used to trusting experts that they didn’t realize that finding the truth wasn’t the primary motivator for some people.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#6Psychological science is now thoroughly privatized. Don't read papers if this subject is of interest to your, look al big tech, ad tech, troll factories, influencer science, media consolidation, for-pay research-charities (great rabbithole to dive into btw). Academics are thoroughly out of the loop on this one, as are we all incidentally.
I became a Data Scientist because in 3rd year, I found the OKCupid data blog and realized their research had methodological soundness these "20 undergraduate lab students forced to be there" research never would. You trade 'shot-in-the-dark lab experiments' for 'a clear and obvious agenda'. The trick is to just make sure the agenda isn't morally reprehensible.
more than one third of the entire world population believes that OKCupid is "morally reprehensible" (!)
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#7"Science"
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#8I 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.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#9I have no basis to argue against the article, but I would think there is more incentive to game it now so I wouldn't take it as a given that things have improved.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I became a Data Scientist because in 3rd year, I found the OKCupid data blog and realized their research had methodological soundness these "20 undergraduate lab students forced to be there" research never would. You trade 'shot-in-the-dark lab experiments' for 'a clear and obvious agenda'. The trick is to just make sure the agenda isn't morally reprehensible.
more than one third of the entire world population believes that OKCupid is "morally reprehensible" (!)
This is an interesting statement. Do you have links to something more I can read? Who thinks dating sites are morally reprehensible?