Read on Twitter
"What does the research say?"
When people repeatedly ask this it seems they are asking "What are the facts?".
But shouldn't they also ask:
* Who paid for the research?
* Who performed the research?
* Who was part of the research?
* Has it been replicated?
When people repeatedly ask this it seems they are asking "What are the facts?".
But shouldn't they also ask:
* Who paid for the research?
* Who performed the research?
* Who was part of the research?
* Has it been replicated?
In 2010 the term "replication crisis" was coined when scientists kept finding that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[
Here's the Wikipedia article on that term, replication crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Here's an interesting article from 2015 regarding this phenomenon: Scientists Replicated 100 Psychology Studies, and Fewer Than Half Got the Same Results https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/
Although all scientific fields are under scrutiny, psychology is at the center of the controversy and social psychology specifically.
I find this interesting because I attend conferences where many of these popularised social psychology experiments are at the heart of the message from many speakers providing advice on how to design for humans.
My fear is that designers place too much trust in the work of others, essentially drawing conclusions about how to design - based on studies that can not be replicated. Thus turning the design itself into a huge [unethical] social experiment...
That's all for now. :)
That's all for now. :)
The oft-quoted ânudgeâ example of making hotel plates smaller to make people consume less food is dangerous because:
1) It assumes all people should consume less.
2) It does not follow @R_Thalerâs rule of transparency.
3) It is also wrong. https://theconversation.com/do-smaller-plates-make-you-eat-less-no-74181
1) It assumes all people should consume less.
2) It does not follow @R_Thalerâs rule of transparency.
3) It is also wrong. https://theconversation.com/do-smaller-plates-make-you-eat-less-no-74181
It turns out all the studies claiming small plates lead to less consumption come from the same research group, one that happens to be under scrutiny for self-plagiariam and data misrepresentation. https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/mar/02/fresh-concerns-raised-over-academic-conduct-of-major-us-nutrition-and-behaviour-lab
I am however confident I will, for many years to come, witness speakers on stage claiming the plate - consumption causation and then using that as evidence of some unrelated design solution being the way to go.
Another important article, this time on medical science: Evidence-Based Lies.
https://medium.com/@BlakeGossard/evidence-based-lies-1ec8db16cc8a?source=linkShare-77d3f63ebe80-1521827685
https://medium.com/@BlakeGossard/evidence-based-lies-1ec8db16cc8a?source=linkShare-77d3f63ebe80-1521827685
Noteworthy quote from this article.
âNews headlines abound proclaiming that new âdataâ support this or that position. In many cases, these âdataâ are derived from surveys, which are highly susceptible to basically every bias known to science.â
âNews headlines abound proclaiming that new âdataâ support this or that position. In many cases, these âdataâ are derived from surveys, which are highly susceptible to basically every bias known to science.â
Another one for the mix, on the lack of insights about cross-cultural psychology and on the dangers of assuming human traits are global and ageless. ht @letterpress_se https://theconversation.com/how-knowledge-about-different-cultures-is-shaking-the-foundations-of-psychology-92696?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1520615158
The problem with Science. Good podcast from @guardianscience weekly. https://overcast.fm/+F8mLIo2DM
Another must-listen podcast A Neuroscientist Explains: psychologyâs replication crisis https://overcast.fm/+MFGeMgJbg
Itâs safe to say that the field of psychology has some cleaning up to do:
âProfessor Philip Zimbardo used the media to turn his Stanford Prison Experiment into the best-known psychology study of all time. It was a sham.â https://medium.com/@benzblum/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62?source=linkShare-77d3f63ebe80-1529466849
âProfessor Philip Zimbardo used the media to turn his Stanford Prison Experiment into the best-known psychology study of all time. It was a sham.â https://medium.com/@benzblum/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62?source=linkShare-77d3f63ebe80-1529466849
Another listening recommendation. âThe marshmallow test is one of the most well-known studies in all of psychology, but a new replication suggests we've been learning the wrong lesson from its findings for decades.â https://overcast.fm/+CuhumMpu4
Please listen to this episode of Radiolab with a walkthrough of the famous Milgram experiments. In this case it's not about poorly performed experiments but many years of misinterpretation (over-simplification).
https://overcast.fm/+J5QRFk
ht @jocke
https://overcast.fm/+J5QRFk
ht @jocke
Boom. 800 scientists call for scrapping the concept of 'statistical significance'.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9
via @cjforms
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9
via @cjforms
It appears in sociology, criminology and psychology textbooks, and in the media as a truism â but what if we take a closer look at the research around "the bystander effect"? https://aeon.co/essays/it-looks-like-human-beings-might-be-good-samaritans-after-all?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9cf68716e1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_28_12_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-9cf68716e1-70597045
The replication crisis is good for science. We just need to acknowledge it and talk about it more. http://theconversation.com/the-replication-crisis-is-good-for-science-103736
Bystander Effect debunked https://twitter.com/lisaehlin/status/1147818230687420416?s=21
More on the weaknesses of the bystander effect (paywall): https://www.wsj.com/articles/bystanders-who-intervene-in-an-attack-11563464806
Backfire effect. That's when people's opinions are contradicted by facts, but the opinion doesn't change - instead it only grows stronger.
But this review suggests the backfire effect is in fact quite rare, and not the norm. https://fullfact.org/blog/2019/mar/does-backfire-effect-exist/
But this review suggests the backfire effect is in fact quite rare, and not the norm. https://fullfact.org/blog/2019/mar/does-backfire-effect-exist/
If you clench a pencil between your teeth, this will force a smile that makes you feel more positive emotions.
Hmmm. But will it really? A registered replication report (RRR) appears to debunk this common notion from social psychology. https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2016/08/20/famous-psychology-study-killed-by-replication-does-a-pencil-in-your-mouth-make-you-feel-happy/
Hmmm. But will it really? A registered replication report (RRR) appears to debunk this common notion from social psychology. https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2016/08/20/famous-psychology-study-killed-by-replication-does-a-pencil-in-your-mouth-make-you-feel-happy/
https://twitter.com/axbom/status/977479576849993728?s=21 https://twitter.com/axbom/status/977479576849993728
People set goals to walk 10,000 steps today because a Japanese watch company in the 1960s made the wearable step-counter manpo-kei, which translates as â10,000-step meterâ. The number 10,000? It just âfeltâ good. And now it feels good to Fitbit et al. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/03/watch-your-step-why-the-10000-daily-goal-is-built-on-bad-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
More debunked behavioral truths.
Under scrutiny: Loss Aversion.
"The popular idea that avoiding losses is a bigger motivator than achieving gains is not supported by the evidence"
via @JesperBylund https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-the-most-important-idea-in-behavioral-decision-making-is-a-fallacy/
Under scrutiny: Loss Aversion.
"The popular idea that avoiding losses is a bigger motivator than achieving gains is not supported by the evidence"
via @JesperBylund https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-the-most-important-idea-in-behavioral-decision-making-is-a-fallacy/
A paper mill is a company that fabricates scientific papers on demand. They sell these to people who need to have a scientific paper published in an international journal. @MicrobiomDigest and team found >400 papers seemingly part of a mill.
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/02/21/the-tadpole-paper-mill/
ht @beantin
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/02/21/the-tadpole-paper-mill/
ht @beantin
'Stockholm syndrome' is a misogynistic invention by a psychiatrist who found his authority questioned. And which was then popularised by the media. As explained by @jessradio in her book about domestic abuse: 'See What You Made Me Do'.
https://twitter.com/sezmohammed/status/1252500993972948992?s=20 https://twitter.com/sezmohammed/status/1252500993972948992
https://twitter.com/sezmohammed/status/1252500993972948992?s=20 https://twitter.com/sezmohammed/status/1252500993972948992
This tweet was detached from the thread. Adding it here so you don't miss it.
https://twitter.com/axbom/status/1237099412515684352?s=21 https://twitter.com/axbom/status/1237099412515684352
https://twitter.com/axbom/status/1237099412515684352?s=21 https://twitter.com/axbom/status/1237099412515684352
Interesting and relevant recent interview with @rcbregman, author of Humankind - on @mehdirhasan's Deconstructed. They talk about some of the problematic experiments mentioned earlier in this thread (Stanford Prison, Milgram) and more. https://overcast.fm/+dcvDvcqYc
