RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Miguel Roig]

You are welcome! :)

From: MARK CASTEEL [ma...@psu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:13 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate

An interesting read Miguel. Thanks for sharing.

Mark

From: Miguel Roig [mailto:ro...@stjohns.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



Is it criticism or bullying?  Here is one perspective:

https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/scientific-criticism-personal-by-nature-civil-by-choice/

Miguel

From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie [mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



But why do the bullies “need to get results” – what made them the data police? 
Or gave them the license to destroy individual researcher’s careers to “promote 
change” (not sure what the change is, other than perhaps fear).

It will take decades to change how we analyze and report data. We need to write 
new textbooks, teach undergrads and grad students differently, change journal 
policies, train editors/reviewers, granting agencies, etc. But right now people 
don’t even agree on the nature of the replication crisis or what should be done 
about it.

And finally, Cuddy published a paper in 2010 following the standard rules for 
the field at the time (really still today) on which she was second author. It 
seems pretty likely that the personal attacks on her were (are) related to her 
being too ambitious, too pretty, too well educated, and too outspoken. Some of 
the comments on the New York Times article even demanded an apology from her 
which is incomprehensible to me (unless we all apologize for conducting 
research as we were trained to do).

Marie

Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: William Scott [mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate




There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that has 
failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor of flashy 
"discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused of 
cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in the 
abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers, there has 
been little consequent action, but now they are getting results. Here is an 
interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to be a so-called 
cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9
[Image removed by 
sender.]<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

The Buck Stops Nowhere – James Heathers – 
Medium<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
medium.com
I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for a 
while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing takes 
time. The ...



From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu>>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don’t think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people’s beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people’s careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Ph

RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[MARK CASTEEL]

An interesting read Miguel. Thanks for sharing.



Mark



From: Miguel Roig [mailto:ro...@stjohns.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)

Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case
Study in Failing to Replicate





Is it criticism or bullying?  Here is one perspective:

https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/scientific-criticism-pers
onal-by-nature-civil-by-choice/



Miguel



From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie [mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> >
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case
Study in Failing to Replicate





But why do the bullies “need to get results” – what made them the data
police? Or gave them the license to destroy individual researcher’s
careers to “promote change” (not sure what the change is, other than
perhaps fear).



It will take decades to change how we analyze and report data. We need to
write new textbooks, teach undergrads and grad students differently,
change journal policies, train editors/reviewers, granting agencies, etc.
But right now people don’t even agree on the nature of the replication
crisis or what should be done about it.



And finally, Cuddy published a paper in 2010 following the standard rules
for the field at the time (really still today) on which she was second
author. It seems pretty likely that the personal attacks on her were (are)
related to her being too ambitious, too pretty, too well educated, and too
outspoken. Some of the comments on the New York Times article even
demanded an apology from her which is incomprehensible to me (unless we
all apologize for conducting research as we were trained to do).



Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology

Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College

Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971

 <http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/> http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/



From: William Scott [mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> >
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case
Study in Failing to Replicate





There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that
has failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor
of flashy "discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused
of cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in
the abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers,
there has been little consequent action, but now they are getting results.
Here is an interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to
be a so-called cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9


 <https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

 <https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
The Buck Stops Nowhere – James Heathers – Medium

medium.com

I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for
a while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing
takes time. The ...



  _

From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu> >
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case
Study in Failing to Replicate





I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from
myself). And I don’t think it is good for science. We already have a
process by which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies)
namely by publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence
instead of making personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are
just a few individual people’s beliefs without any checks and balances. We
should focus on making our science better not on destroying people’s
careers.



The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication
studies are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one
failed replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these
problems (in our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal
editorial policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.



Marie







Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology

Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College

Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971

 <http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/> http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/



From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostbu

RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Miguel Roig]

Is it criticism or bullying?  Here is one perspective:

https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/scientific-criticism-personal-by-nature-civil-by-choice/

Miguel

From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie [mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



But why do the bullies "need to get results" - what made them the data police? 
Or gave them the license to destroy individual researcher's careers to "promote 
change" (not sure what the change is, other than perhaps fear).

It will take decades to change how we analyze and report data. We need to write 
new textbooks, teach undergrads and grad students differently, change journal 
policies, train editors/reviewers, granting agencies, etc. But right now people 
don't even agree on the nature of the replication crisis or what should be done 
about it.

And finally, Cuddy published a paper in 2010 following the standard rules for 
the field at the time (really still today) on which she was second author. It 
seems pretty likely that the personal attacks on her were (are) related to her 
being too ambitious, too pretty, too well educated, and too outspoken. Some of 
the comments on the New York Times article even demanded an apology from her 
which is incomprehensible to me (unless we all apologize for conducting 
research as we were trained to do).

Marie

Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: William Scott [mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate




There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that has 
failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor of flashy 
"discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused of 
cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in the 
abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers, there has 
been little consequent action, but now they are getting results. Here is an 
interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to be a so-called 
cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9
[Image removed by 
sender.]<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

The Buck Stops Nowhere - James Heathers - 
Medium<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
medium.com
I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for a 
while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing takes 
time. The ...



From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu>>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don't think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people's beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people's careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every s

RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Helweg-Larsen, Marie]

But why do the bullies "need to get results" - what made them the data police? 
Or gave them the license to destroy individual researcher's careers to "promote 
change" (not sure what the change is, other than perhaps fear).

It will take decades to change how we analyze and report data. We need to write 
new textbooks, teach undergrads and grad students differently, change journal 
policies, train editors/reviewers, granting agencies, etc. But right now people 
don't even agree on the nature of the replication crisis or what should be done 
about it.

And finally, Cuddy published a paper in 2010 following the standard rules for 
the field at the time (really still today) on which she was second author. It 
seems pretty likely that the personal attacks on her were (are) related to her 
being too ambitious, too pretty, too well educated, and too outspoken. Some of 
the comments on the New York Times article even demanded an apology from her 
which is incomprehensible to me (unless we all apologize for conducting 
research as we were trained to do).

Marie

Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: William Scott [mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate




There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that has 
failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor of flashy 
"discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused of 
cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in the 
abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers, there has 
been little consequent action, but now they are getting results. Here is an 
interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to be a so-called 
cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9
[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*NPuM_JhIXSZIr3AcZ_S6mQ.jpeg]<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

The Buck Stops Nowhere - James Heathers - 
Medium<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
medium.com
I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for a 
while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing takes 
time. The ...



From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu>>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don't think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people's beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people's careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every scientist should readily accept (e.g., phenomena that aren't 
replicable are not scientifically valid phenomena). There are some people who 
have become exasperated when they have spent considerable time and effort 
showing that some supposed finding has serious flaws, and all they get back for 
their efforts is dodging and weaving. We have all been taught since we were 
undergrads that

RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Miguel Roig]

Two reactions: It is not so much the failure of peer review to consider the 
true value of replications, but a failure of long-standing editorial/journal 
policy, which is then passed down to referees. Also, wrt the blog, an editor 
may not be able to compel an author to release his/her data, but if data 
availability is a precondition to publication and the author refuses to release 
data, that editor has the power to issue an expression of concern or even a 
retraction of that author's work. These outcomes, which have already occurred 
in some instances, usually have significant negative consequences for the 
authors. 

Miguel

From: William Scott [wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:45 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate

There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that has 
failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor of flashy 
"discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused of 
cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in the 
abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers, there has 
been little consequent action, but now they are getting results. Here is an 
interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to be a so-called 
cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*NPuM_JhIXSZIr3AcZ_S6mQ.jpeg]<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

The Buck Stops Nowhere – James Heathers – 
Medium<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
medium.com
I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for a 
while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing takes 
time. The ...




From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don’t think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people’s beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people’s careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every scientist should readily accept (e.g., phenomena that aren’t 
replicable are not scientifically valid phenomena). There are some people who 
have become exasperated when they have spent considerable time and effort 
showing that some supposed finding has serious flaws, and all they get back for 
their efforts is dodging and weaving. We have all been taught since we were 
undergrads that replication is the gold standard of science.  So, it is bizarre 
to have people act as though attempts at replication are some sort of unfair 
“attack" on them. It is, on the contrary, a central pillar of scientific 
practice (even if psychologists have long been too lax about it). We should be 
conducting far more attempts at replication, not trying to shut down the little 
that is now, finally, started being done.

If we are going to feel sorry for someone, it shouldn’t be for the people who 
did poor work in the first place, then, when it was shown to be poor, played 
the victim instead of the culprit. We should feel sorry for all those early 
career researchers — graduate stud

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[William Scott]

There are those who would argue that it is the peer review process that has 
failed us by avoiding the publication of replication studies in favor of flashy 
"discovery". As well many of the critics who have been accused of 
cyber-bullying have argued that when the arguments have been made in the 
abstract without specifically calling out individual researchers, there has 
been little consequent action, but now they are getting results. Here is an 
interesting post by James Heathers about what it feels like to be a so-called 
cyber-bully.

https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*NPuM_JhIXSZIr3AcZ_S6mQ.jpeg]<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>

The Buck Stops Nowhere – James Heathers – 
Medium<https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-buck-stops-nowhere-8284a57c88c9>
medium.com
I wrote them all down in shorthand, then forgot about them. At least, for a 
while. The reason why is simple: I have a job and writing, well, writing takes 
time. The ...




From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don’t think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people’s beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people’s careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every scientist should readily accept (e.g., phenomena that aren’t 
replicable are not scientifically valid phenomena). There are some people who 
have become exasperated when they have spent considerable time and effort 
showing that some supposed finding has serious flaws, and all they get back for 
their efforts is dodging and weaving. We have all been taught since we were 
undergrads that replication is the gold standard of science.  So, it is bizarre 
to have people act as though attempts at replication are some sort of unfair 
“attack" on them. It is, on the contrary, a central pillar of scientific 
practice (even if psychologists have long been too lax about it). We should be 
conducting far more attempts at replication, not trying to shut down the little 
that is now, finally, started being done.

If we are going to feel sorry for someone, it shouldn’t be for the people who 
did poor work in the first place, then, when it was shown to be poor, played 
the victim instead of the culprit. We should feel sorry for all those early 
career researchers — graduate students, post-docs, untenured profs — who 
assumed that the senior researchers, journal reviewers, and editors knew what 
they were doing and, so, attempted to use the published literature as a basis 
for their own research. But they were unable to re-produce the supposedly 
established results and so, in the end, did not graduate, did not get permanent 
positions, and did not get tenure. That’s who I feel sorry for. If we had been 
more vigilant in the first place, these poor people would not have found 
themselves in so untenable a situation in the first place.

Chris
…..
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773895°, -79.503670°

chri...@yorku.ca<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
orcid.org/-0002-6027-6709
...

On Oct 22, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie 
mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu>> wrote:

RE: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Helweg-Larsen, Marie]

I think they are bullies (and I am not trying to deflect attention from 
myself). And I don't think it is good for science. We already have a process by 
which we can discuss replication (or problems with studies) namely by 
publishing in peer reviewed journals focusing on the evidence instead of making 
personal attacks. Blogs are not peer reviewed and are just a few individual 
people's beliefs without any checks and balances. We should focus on making our 
science better not on destroying people's careers.

The field is full of underpowered studies as well as findings that will 
probably not hold up under replication (although lots of replication studies 
are themselves under powered or presented with glee as if one failed 
replication can provide conclusive evidence). We should fix these problems (in 
our training of undergraduate and graduate students, journal editorial 
policies, etc.) and not by attacking individual researchers.

Marie



Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every scientist should readily accept (e.g., phenomena that aren't 
replicable are not scientifically valid phenomena). There are some people who 
have become exasperated when they have spent considerable time and effort 
showing that some supposed finding has serious flaws, and all they get back for 
their efforts is dodging and weaving. We have all been taught since we were 
undergrads that replication is the gold standard of science.  So, it is bizarre 
to have people act as though attempts at replication are some sort of unfair 
"attack" on them. It is, on the contrary, a central pillar of scientific 
practice (even if psychologists have long been too lax about it). We should be 
conducting far more attempts at replication, not trying to shut down the little 
that is now, finally, started being done.

If we are going to feel sorry for someone, it shouldn't be for the people who 
did poor work in the first place, then, when it was shown to be poor, played 
the victim instead of the culprit. We should feel sorry for all those early 
career researchers - graduate students, post-docs, untenured profs - who 
assumed that the senior researchers, journal reviewers, and editors knew what 
they were doing and, so, attempted to use the published literature as a basis 
for their own research. But they were unable to re-produce the supposedly 
established results and so, in the end, did not graduate, did not get permanent 
positions, and did not get tenure. That's who I feel sorry for. If we had been 
more vigilant in the first place, these poor people would not have found 
themselves in so untenable a situation in the first place.

Chris
.
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773895°, -79.503670°

chri...@yorku.ca<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
orcid.org/-0002-6027-6709
...

On Oct 22, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie 
mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu>> wrote:







The story IS about Amy Cutter and her experiences as a person, a woman, a 
social psychologist, etc. It is a fascinating story exactly because the article 
draws on her experiences to make broader points about gender, a new online 
bullying culture and how that culture can change people (or in this case at 
least one person).

It seems that the bullies themselves don't understand the idea of replication 
or the fact the single-replications are often vastly underpowered (see attached 
article).  And of course bullies are righteous in their work to "fix" things.

I think Amy Cutter's experiences are echoed in the field now and it scares me.

Marie


Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Professor l Department of Psychology
Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/

From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 12:49 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study 
in Failing to Replicate



I don't think it was a choice. I think it was a journalistic reflex - go for 
the personal, the emotional, because it draws in readers. The same r

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Christopher Green]

So far as I know, Marie, there are no bullies here. They accusation is an 
attempt by some people whose work has not held up to deflect attention from 
themselves.

True, there are some people who are blunt about what they take to be obvious 
points that every scientist should readily accept (e.g., phenomena that aren’t 
replicable are not scientifically valid phenomena). There are some people who 
have become exasperated when they have spent considerable time and effort 
showing that some supposed finding has serious flaws, and all they get back for 
their efforts is dodging and weaving. We have all been taught since we were 
undergrads that replication is the gold standard of science.  So, it is bizarre 
to have people act as though attempts at replication are some sort of unfair 
“attack" on them. It is, on the contrary, a central pillar of scientific 
practice (even if psychologists have long been too lax about it). We should be 
conducting far more attempts at replication, not trying to shut down the little 
that is now, finally, started being done. 

If we are going to feel sorry for someone, it shouldn’t be for the people who 
did poor work in the first place, then, when it was shown to be poor, played 
the victim instead of the culprit. We should feel sorry for all those early 
career researchers — graduate students, post-docs, untenured profs — who 
assumed that the senior researchers, journal reviewers, and editors knew what 
they were doing and, so, attempted to use the published literature as a basis 
for their own research. But they were unable to re-produce the supposedly 
established results and so, in the end, did not graduate, did not get permanent 
positions, and did not get tenure. That’s who I feel sorry for. If we had been 
more vigilant in the first place, these poor people would not have found 
themselves in so untenable a situation in the first place.

Chris
…..
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773895°, -79.503670°

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
orcid.org/-0002-6027-6709
...

On Oct 22, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> The story IS about Amy Cutter and her experiences as a person, a woman, a 
> social psychologist, etc. It is a fascinating story exactly because the 
> article draws on her experiences to make broader points about gender, a new 
> online bullying culture and how that culture can change people (or in this 
> case at least one person).
>  
> It seems that the bullies themselves don’t understand the idea of replication 
> or the fact the single-replications are often vastly underpowered (see 
> attached article).  And of course bullies are righteous in their work to 
> “fix” things.
>  
> I think Amy Cutter’s experiences are echoed in the field now and it scares me.
>  
> Marie
>  
>  
> Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
> Professor l Department of Psychology
> Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College
> Phone 717.245.1040 l Fax 717.245.1971
> http://blogs.dickinson.edu/helwegm/
>  
> From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 12:49 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
> Subject: Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case 
> Study in Failing to Replicate
>  
>  
> 
> I don’t think it was a choice. I think it was a journalistic reflex — go for 
> the personal, the emotional, because it draws in readers. The same reason 
> they pepper stories about murder rates with profiles about individual murder 
> victims. But in this particular case, it directed readers away from the real 
> story. They came out feeling sympathetic with the Harvard scientist whose 
> work had been (correctly, let us remember) called into question instead of 
> gasping for air at the gaping hole that was staring them in the face. Cuddy’s 
> reaction might be worth a paragraph, but here we got this lavish, heroic 
> treatment of her hard childhood, her teenage car accident, her difficulties 
> returning to school, and her rise, against all odds, to a Princeton PhD and a 
> Harvard professorship. But that’s not the story. The story is that nearly all 
> of the psychological  research of the past 50+ years is now under a cloud of 
> suspicion because we (nearly all) acted badly — sometimes disingenuously — 
> with respect to statistical analysis. Instead of demanding that those who 
> wanted the title of “scientist” really internalize the math, the probability 
> theory, and the critical assumption that underlie data analysis, we turned it 
> into a perfunctory "cookbook” that made it easy for people to think (or 
> rationalize) that there were no real consequences for cutting corners — 
> replacing butter with margarine, leaving out the dash of sal

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Michael Palij]

Christopher Green wrote:
[snip]

>but of a ton of medical research (classic cancer
>experiments aren’t replicating), not to mention
>the rest of the social/behavioral sciences (every
>single one of which — except economics — shows an
>[in]explicable hump just inside the .05 p-value, when
>you survey the literature — graph here: > 
>https://twitter.com/jtleek/status/890180014733492225 
>).

I must admit that it is a pretty graph but it really should be called

a "ridgeplot" instead of a "joyplot" ("joy" comes from the band "Joy

Division" which actually refers to a horrendous situation -- google it

if you really want to know).  But maybe I'm too skeptic of things but

if you actually get the data (its in a R data formatted file which with

the right wizardry can be imported into SPSS), all 3+ million cases

and just select the sources for psychology and sociology (N=78,6K, that's

what the person who put the data together used in the "field" variable)

you will see the following if you code p-values into 1 unit bands

(i.e., 5.00 to 4.00 -- p-values are expressed as percentages) all the

way down to p<.00 (no, the p-value is not zero but really, really, really

tiny -- maybe a little too tiny?).

​Why, all of the p-values are less than .01.  How can that be if there
is supposed

to be a "hump" in the .04-.05 interval?  Maybe not in this dataset.

What do we see if we include all of the cases (3.6+ million cases)?



​The top row (1) contains sources with a p-value between 4-5 and there is only

one such case. There are no results with a p-value between 3-4. There are

3 values in the intervanl 2-3, and 9 values in the interval 1-2. There are over

3.6 million cases with p-values between 0-1 and 20.8K with a p-value
less than .01.

This doesn't seem to match the ridgeplot that Jeff Leek has but we have analyzed

the data in different ways and I admit that maybe I made an error somewhere but

reviewing my work, I don't see any errors.

So, no "hump" in the interval .04-05 and as the p-values decrease, the
frequencies

increase up to the interval .01-.00.  For p<= .001, there is a significant drop.

So, what pattern are we supposed to see if these are terrible studies?

If one looks at the raw p-values what is most striking is how many cases with

p< .0001 there are (are p-value that are all zero up to the 16th
decimal value).

This is really peculiar because either the effect sizes are Godzilla
sized or the

sample sizes are Godzilla sized or both (i.e., Godzilla^2).

Yes, I think there is a replication crisis but I don't think that the data that

Jeff Leek used to make his pretty ridgelplot graph provides any support for

it.  But what do I know, right?  Anyone can download the data from the Github

website and do the analyses I report either in R or SPSS or whatever statistical

software one uses.

I await the coming results.

By the way, because the tables above are jpegs, this post probably won't

make it into the Mail Archive or the digest but you should get it if you get

post via direct email.

-MIke Palij

New York University

m...@nyu.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51597
or send a blank email to 
leave-51597-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Rick Froman]

I assumed you meant it was perfectly explicable.

Rick

Rick Froman
rfro...@jbu.edu

On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Christopher Green 
mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>> wrote:




On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Christopher Green 
mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>> wrote:

not to mention the rest of the social/behavioral sciences (every single one of 
which - except economics - shows an explicable hump just inside the .05 
p-value, when you survey the literature - graph here: 
https://twitter.com/jtleek/status/890180014733492225).


Sorry, that should have been "...INexplicable hump just inside the .05 
p-value..."

- cdg

---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
rfro...@jbu.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=51594

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-51594-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51596
or send a blank email to 
leave-51596-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[dhogberg]

A follow-up

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Christopher Green  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t think it was a choice. I think it was a journalistic reflex — go for 
> the personal, the emotional, because it draws in readers. The same reason 
> they pepper stories about murder rates with profiles about individual murder 
> victims. But in this particular case, it directed readers away from the real 
> story. They came out feeling sympathetic with the Harvard scientist whose 
> work had been (correctly, let us remember) called into question instead of 
> gasping for air at the gaping hole that was staring them in the face. Cuddy’s 
> reaction might be worth a paragraph, but here we got this lavish, heroic 
> treatment of her hard childhood, her teenage car accident, her difficulties 
> returning to school, and her rise, against all odds, to a Princeton PhD and a 
> Harvard professorship. But that’s not the story. The story is that nearly all 
> of the psychological  research of the past 50+ years is now under a cloud of 
> suspicion because we (nearly all) acted badly — sometimes disingenuously — 
> with respect to statistical analysis. Instead of demanding that those who 
> wanted the title of “scientist” really internalize the math, the probability 
> theory, and the critical assumption that underlie data analysis, we turned it 
> into a perfunctory "cookbook” that made it easy for people to think (or 
> rationalize) that there were no real consequences for cutting corners — 
> replacing butter with margarine, leaving out the dash of salt, trying to 
> replace sugar with some sort of artificial sweetener — and what we ended up 
> with was a hot mess that no one who is serious about these things can stomach 
> anymore. 
> 
> And it’s not as though any of this is new (though everyone who gets caught 
> keeps saying they had never heard of it before). The computational facility 
> that allows for the simulation studies of the past few years is new, but Paul 
> Meehl and Jacob Cohen and David Bakan, and Jum Nunnally, and Bill Rozeboom.  
> and Bob Rosenthal have all been telling us this stuff since the 1960s and 
> 1970s (and through the 1980s and 1990s). (Heck, there are even couple of 
> articles by a guy named Berkson from 1938 and 1942). But even most of the 
> psychologists who bothered to read this material (I was lucky that it was 
> assigned to me as an undergrad — Thanks TIPSter Stuart McKelvie!) decided to 
> harumph and go on pretty much as before — a little worse each decade as the 
> designs got more complex. 
> 
> It is a massive s#*t sandwich, and it threatens the credibility of not only 
> psychology, but of a ton of medical research (classic cancer experiments 
> aren’t replicating), not to mention the rest of the social/behavioral 
> sciences (every single one of which — except economics — shows an explicable 
> hump just inside the .05 p-value, when you survey the literature — graph 
> here: https://twitter.com/jtleek/status/890180014733492225). And we’re 
> suppose to focus on poor Amy Cuddy’s feelings? The thing is (for those of you 
> inclined to think that this is “really” a gender issue), Cuddy is way old 
> news now. Brian Wansink’s food lab at Cornell is having to correct and 
> retract dozens of articles — research that has already been (mis-)used to 
> change the practices of school cafeterias and the like. For heaven’s sake, he 
> was so “sloppy" that one of his most famous studies on the eating behaviour 
> of 8-11 year olds turned out to have actually been run on 4-5 year olds!  I 
> wouldn't expect him or his lab to last another year. There are half a dozen 
> other prominent labs under scrutiny of this kind as well.
> 
> Psychology is in deep trouble. Much worse than we know yet, especially once 
> the politicians who hate social science already get ahold of it. Amy Cuddy’s 
> feelings won’t amount to a hill of beans once the full scale of this thing is 
> understood. 
> 
> Chris
> …..
> Christopher D Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
> 43.773895°, -79.503670°
> 
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo
> orcid.org/-0002-6027-6709
> ...
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Michael Palij  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:03:43 -0700,  Christopher Green wrote:
>> 
>> >Interesting article, but I thought it made the usual journalistic error 
>> >of personalizing the story too much, making readers come away 
>> >feeling for the people instead of understanding the problem.
>> 
>> Although I agree that there is too much personalization (I believe
>> this is done so that the reader can (a) see the person described
>> as more as a relatable person), and (b) borrowing some of the
>> writing conventions from fiction to make what would be a dry
>> nonfiction story more interesting.  In an article like this, I can accept
>> it.  However, after a long hiatus, I am teaching Introdu

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Christopher Green]

On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Christopher Green  wrote:
> 
> not to mention the rest of the social/behavioral sciences (every single one 
> of which — except economics — shows an explicable hump just inside the .05 
> p-value, when you survey the literature — graph here: 
> https://twitter.com/jtleek/status/890180014733492225). 
> 

Sorry, that should have been “...INexplicable hump just inside the .05 p-value…"

- cdg
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51594
or send a blank email to 
leave-51594-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Christopher Green]

I don’t think it was a choice. I think it was a journalistic reflex — go for 
the personal, the emotional, because it draws in readers. The same reason they 
pepper stories about murder rates with profiles about individual murder 
victims. But in this particular case, it directed readers away from the real 
story. They came out feeling sympathetic with the Harvard scientist whose work 
had been (correctly, let us remember) called into question instead of gasping 
for air at the gaping hole that was staring them in the face. Cuddy’s reaction 
might be worth a paragraph, but here we got this lavish, heroic treatment of 
her hard childhood, her teenage car accident, her difficulties returning to 
school, and her rise, against all odds, to a Princeton PhD and a Harvard 
professorship. But that’s not the story. The story is that nearly all of the 
psychological  research of the past 50+ years is now under a cloud of suspicion 
because we (nearly all) acted badly — sometimes disingenuously — with respect 
to statistical analysis. Instead of demanding that those who wanted the title 
of “scientist” really internalize the math, the probability theory, and the 
critical assumption that underlie data analysis, we turned it into a 
perfunctory "cookbook” that made it easy for people to think (or rationalize) 
that there were no real consequences for cutting corners — replacing butter 
with margarine, leaving out the dash of salt, trying to replace sugar with some 
sort of artificial sweetener — and what we ended up with was a hot mess that no 
one who is serious about these things can stomach anymore. 

And it’s not as though any of this is new (though everyone who gets caught 
keeps saying they had never heard of it before). The computational facility 
that allows for the simulation studies of the past few years is new, but Paul 
Meehl and Jacob Cohen and David Bakan, and Jum Nunnally, and Bill Rozeboom.  
and Bob Rosenthal have all been telling us this stuff since the 1960s and 1970s 
(and through the 1980s and 1990s). (Heck, there are even couple of articles by 
a guy named Berkson from 1938 and 1942). But even most of the psychologists who 
bothered to read this material (I was lucky that it was assigned to me as an 
undergrad — Thanks TIPSter Stuart McKelvie!) decided to harumph and go on 
pretty much as before — a little worse each decade as the designs got more 
complex. 

It is a massive s#*t sandwich, and it threatens the credibility of not only 
psychology, but of a ton of medical research (classic cancer experiments aren’t 
replicating), not to mention the rest of the social/behavioral sciences (every 
single one of which — except economics — shows an explicable hump just inside 
the .05 p-value, when you survey the literature — graph here: 
https://twitter.com/jtleek/status/890180014733492225). And we’re suppose to 
focus on poor Amy Cuddy’s feelings? The thing is (for those of you inclined to 
think that this is “really” a gender issue), Cuddy is way old news now. Brian 
Wansink’s food lab at Cornell is having to correct and retract dozens of 
articles — research that has already been (mis-)used to change the practices of 
school cafeterias and the like. For heaven’s sake, he was so “sloppy" that one 
of his most famous studies on the eating behaviour of 8-11 year olds turned out 
to have actually been run on 4-5 year olds!  I wouldn't expect him or his lab 
to last another year. There are half a dozen other prominent labs under 
scrutiny of this kind as well.

Psychology is in deep trouble. Much worse than we know yet, especially once the 
politicians who hate social science already get ahold of it. Amy Cuddy’s 
feelings won’t amount to a hill of beans once the full scale of this thing is 
understood. 

Chris
…..
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773895°, -79.503670°

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
orcid.org/-0002-6027-6709
...

On Oct 21, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Michael Palij  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:03:43 -0700,  Christopher Green wrote:
> 
> >Interesting article, but I thought it made the usual journalistic error 
> >of personalizing the story too much, making readers come away 
> >feeling for the people instead of understanding the problem.
> 
> Although I agree that there is too much personalization (I believe
> this is done so that the reader can (a) see the person described
> as more as a relatable person), and (b) borrowing some of the
> writing conventions from fiction to make what would be a dry
> nonfiction story more interesting.  In an article like this, I can accept
> it.  However, after a long hiatus, I am teaching Introduction to Psych
> and find that the textbook is filled with too many personalized examples
> or what I would call "cutesy" examples that to simplify the presentation
> and make it more accessible to undergraduates.  I think that this
> helps students maybe to underst

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Michael Palij]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:03:43 -0700,  Christopher Green wrote:

>Interesting article, but I thought it made the usual journalistic error
>of personalizing the story too much, making readers come away
>feeling for the people instead of understanding the problem.

Although I agree that there is too much personalization (I believe
this is done so that the reader can (a) see the person described
as more as a relatable person), and (b) borrowing some of the
writing conventions from fiction to make what would be a dry
nonfiction story more interesting.  In an article like this, I can accept
it.  However, after a long hiatus, I am teaching Introduction to Psych
and find that the textbook is filled with too many personalized examples
or what I would call "cutesy" examples that to simplify the presentation
and make it more accessible to undergraduates.  I think that this
helps students maybe to understand the presentation (or develop
the illusion of understanding) which will be challenged when they try
to read actual empirical research articles (e.g., "hey, where's the main
character? Where's the dramatic action and tension? etc.).

That being said, from a 'qualitative research" perspective, I think
it is interesting to see what a person who has published a piece of
research that cannot be replicated is feeling and thinking.  Amy
Cuddy appear to be a highly capable and skilled person who though
she has given up on academia (at least for now) will make out
all right (kinda like John B. Watson, if you know what I mean).

The larger issue of the replication crisis, the pressures to publish
popular (to the general public not the scientific community) articles,
and to get external funding, I think, will be lost on the general reader.
Seeing how these factors affect a likable character is perhaps the
only way to show what these factors are and can do to a person.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this article uses a person who
is basically good but was incautious.  It might have been more
interesting if the person being covered was Diederik Stapel who
seems to be a much darker person and who appears to have inentionally
done bad things.

One could say that bad science arises from good people doing
"incompetent" research and "bad" people doing fraudulent research,
among other things (e.g., following fads that focus on the weong things).

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51592
or send a blank email to 
leave-51592-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the Impossible is Shown to be Impossible: A Case Study in Failing to Replicate

[Christopher Green]

Interesting article, but I thought it made the usual journalistic error of 
personalizing the story too much, making readers come away feeling for the 
people instead of understanding the problem.

Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Michael Palij  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> There is an interesting article that will appear in this
> Sunday's NYT Magazine about social psychologist
> Amy Cuddy of "Power Pose" fame.  See:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
> 
> One lesson to draw from this is that one should make sure
> that one's research is done correctly before one publishes it.
> 
> -Mike Palij
> New York University
> m...@nyu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=51586
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-51586-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51587
or send a blank email to 
leave-51587-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu