I do feel schadenfreude. For decades, self-righteous, feel good people in social psychology telling us to believe their stuff. No clothing on that field, re-evaluate every claim.https://twitter.com/hardsci/status/1000120298639802368 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Correct description of social psychologists is honest, but deeply untrustworthy due to ideology. Not "bad people", but definitely people extremely harmful to the goals of scientific psychological understanding.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.