Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
1–10 of 240 posts
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#2Oh the irony...
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#3I'm glad the authors seem to have acknowledged the problem and not doing much about it :-)
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#4Having skimmed this article and the replication study itself (which references some studies that complicate our common understanding of the positive effects of deadlines) I’m left wondering what the constructive alternative is to deadlines and/or how deadlines should be maintained or determined.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#5Dan Ariely remaining at Duke, after it has become clear that much if not most of his work is fraudulent, is at least as big a black mark for Duke as Jason Arday was for Cambridge.
Not to mention the Epstein ties.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#6Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely
It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with his research.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#7I'm glad the authors seem to have acknowledged the problem and not doing much about it :-)
Per the post, the original authors have requested that the original paper be retracted. That’s well above the bar of “not doing much”.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#8Dan Ariely remaining at Duke, after it has become clear that much if not most of his work is fraudulent, is at least as big a black mark for Duke as Jason Arday was for Cambridge. Not to mention the Epstein ties.
Dan Ariely was one of the biggest disappointments and betrayals of my intellectual life. I found the "research" he did to be mind-blowing, groundbreaking stuff at the time, and I told many people his work, sharing his papers and podcasts as a true enthusiast.
I am astonished that he holds an academic-adjacent position anywhere, no matter what his regrets might be today. Private redemption shouldn't be out of reach, but it shouldn't be possible for him to hold a position at any institution concerned with uncovering Truth. He should have resigned out of respect, if his institution was too gutless to do so. It's a tragedy.
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#9It does seem like its way too easy to do this kind of fraud.
The study seems extremely easy to replicate (no fancy equipment needed, just ask some people to proofread), and yet nobody did until now. Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Assign undergrads to replicate random research papers?
Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
#10It does seem like its way too easy to do this kind of fraud. The study seems extremely easy to replicate (no fancy equipment needed, just ask some people to proofread), and yet nobody did until now. Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Assign undergrads to replicate random research papers?
> Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate?
Sure. Pay them to do it.