|
2/3 of psychology studies are not repeatable[^]
My gf is getting her MA in psychology, and I've been looking at some of the studies that other people have written. Simply looking at the statistics, it became clear to me that a lot of studies are based on bad math and statistically insignificant fluctuations in correlations.
And then of course, those studies get cited when creating new studies, and so forth. The whole field is a ridiculous house of cards.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Although more related to psychiatry, there's an interesting video called 'Making A Killing: The Untold Story Of Psychotropic Drugging' that exposes a lot of the industry. Available on youtube if you search for it. In the end a lot of it goes about money.
|
|
|
|
|
And how do you feel about that? 
|
|
|
|
|
And the computer industry is different now? How much bashing is done of <pick a="" topic=""> without a thorough examination? There are good and bad in all, but do we look or just jump on board with the bashing?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you had a look to QA and the moderation queue? 
Although there are a lot of people having a look and concerned about quality... there are (as well) a lot of trush getting through
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Feynman, in Six Easy Pieces, has some rather interesting things to say about psychology. He asks the question of whether psychology can be called a science. I can't remember his whole argument as although the book is called 'Six Easy Pieces', I think a better title would have been 'I know how to make you feel really stupid'.
The meta analysis of studies based on studies, can be abused in what is known as 'confirmation bias' - that is only using data that confirms your hypothesis and excluding data that contradicts your hypothesis. This can happen in any science and there are definitely cases of this in medicine.
I remember a study I worked on where the dominant variable in a study was found to be whether or not the patient had been prescribed suppositories. As this was a study led by a US team(the UK part of the team was quite happy publishing this data), this was deemed to be too risqué and a mad dash was made to find a variable that was more palatable to the readership of the study.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the one hand, any psychologist will agree that extrapolating from one person to the entire population is ridiculous. On the other hand, neither the researchers nor the reviewers have a thorough grounding in statistics.
This failing is true of all of the social "sciences", and is IMO why most published studies are not worth the bits required to transmit them.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, a study has shown that 63% of all studies have made up numbers 
|
|
|
|
|
And the other half are just wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of numbers... What about 9082365?
|
|
|
|
|
Dive into any field of knowledge and most people are fake.
The Good thing is some people are real and knowledgeable
With friendly greetings,
Eric Goedhart
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The whole field is a ridiculous
(personal opinion alert) : I wouldn't say the "whole" field, but I think most of it is crap...utterly; especially with psychiatrists.
|
|
|
|
|
...and still win big.
I think Scott Adams is hilarious most of the time. You can tell he understands what its actually like to work (live) in a cubicle in the middle of the corporate world.
That's why I recently picked up his new(er) book, How To Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big[^].
It's autobiographical but also informative and entertaining.
Did you know that back in mid-90s he suffered a problem where he couldn't draw because of an odd problem where his pinkie finger would spasm?
Or did you know he lost his voice when speaking to people, but could talk out loud fine when alone or talking to his cat? Very interesting about how he overcame these problems.
I read The Dilbert Principle a long time ago and discovered he is a great writer too and this new book proves that too.
Anyone else out there read the book? What did you think?
|
|
|
|
|
What I like about Scott Adams is that he is great at seeing through a situation to the roots, and then explaining that to people in a humorous and thought provoking way. Yes, Dilbert is hugely exaggerated, but there is a small germ of truth in all of it - and we can recognise our cow-orkers in his strips.
I haven't read that one yet - but I'll key my eye open for it.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: explaining that to people in a humorous and thought provoking way.
Agree 100%.
A couple of the chapters are titled:
Passion Is Bullsh*t - a great explanation of this modern idea that passion over rules everything else.
Goals Versus Systems -- why having goals can be a problem, why following a system is a better way to think of things. Really great stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Yes, Dilbert is hugely exaggerated, but there is a small germ of truth in all of it
At my company, I would say mildly exaggerated and a decent amount of truth. The only thing missing from my boss is the pointy hair. The HR guy is a little different version of Catbert personified. We have a much less witty version(s) of Wally. Sometimes it gets a little surreal.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Dilbert is hugely exaggerated
No, it is not.
I worked for a company that we were sure he was a mole at.
Every seemingly nonsensical thing he wrote had either been announced or just about to be announced as policy.
One coworker was wallpapering her cube with every strip that directly related to our work. We wondered if she was going to need to move to another cube when she ran out of wallspace.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
He still can't draw. So the book title is obviously self biographic.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: He still can't draw.
Yeah, comic strips are interesting. Are they a medium for communicating truths -- drawings matter less?
Or, are they a form of art -- drawings matter more (see Calvin & Hobbs creator Bill Watterson).
|
|
|
|
|
I would love to see Watterson getting active again.
But it seems like Berkeley Breathed might be coming out of hibernation[^].(Warning, facebook link)
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Berkeley Breathed
I still remember reading Breathed in the paper and then buying his first compilation. He really took comics to a new place before others did. Amazing stuff and so funny. Still remember his parody of Star Wars and his commentary on waiting so long for the Star Wars (return of the jedi) sequel. Great stuff.
Edit
Oh, wow, I can't believe the comic strip I was talking about is available online:
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=80345[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Just found out that his son is named Milo. 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
