Social psychology is basically just a way to spread far left politics while pretending to do "science"http://atavisionary.com/stereotype-threat-and-and-pseudo-scientists/ …
-
-
-
I do think most social psychologists are honest about their work. However, they are fairly innumerate and very skewed politically (like 20 to 1 Dem-Rep), so their results tend to be whatever one can QRP to fit with their general view of the world, i.e. leftist politics.
-
Well, from what I have read they mostly do not share the data they make conclusions from. They may be hiding it because they don't want to get scooped by "colleagues." But frankly, that doesn't inspire much confidence.
-
They share a lot more now a days. But data sharing issues are widespread in science, it is not a social psychology thing. But yes, lack of data sharing is IMO suspicious.
-
You are right. Trust of "colleagues" or the extremely obvious lack thereof is the biggest problem in all sciences. Still, some "sciences" are more important to public policy than others. Secrecy in Morel genetics isn't going to harm society like fake results on stereotype threat
-
Unfortunately, the socially most important science, in so far as policy is the most important matter, is the social ones, and these are the most biased and the ones with the lowest standards, and also the least numerate participants and least bright.
-
I can't argue with that. But I view them as cancer that needs to be cut out. There will be other damage, but at least the host (western civilization) will be saved. In other words, no more taxpayer funding for humanities "research"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
On the other hand, survivors maybe will learn proper stats and rebuild infrastructure.
-
We'll see about that! If they can implement p = .005 'discovery threshold', it will obviously help because it's much harder to QRP the way to that level without direct fraud.
-
I don't think the threshold is going to help much - tbh, I find the idea counterproductive (as do some others who know more than I do: https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6 ). You can still QRP large data sets, you'll just have to have better funding to collect so much data.
-
I read that, but not convincing IMO. Psychologists will keep doing their student thing and they can't QRP that into p<.005 given null hypothesis using ordinary QRP methods.
-
What about the other issues outlined there? I think the whole focus on singular p-values is a bigger part of the issue. Encouraging replications more and forcing us to justify our alpha would at least make us think more. Hopefully.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Honestly I always knew it was 90% crap, and I wonder why everyone else fell for it.
-
As the saying goes, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
-
They demanded much higher levels of proof for their favored theories.
-
(For disproving their favored theories, that is)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.