Recently, more than 270 psychologists set out to repeat 100 experiments to see if they could generate the same results. They successfully replicated only 39 of the 100 studies.
Over several years, failed attempts to replicate published studies have caused generally accepted bodies of research to be called into question — or rejected outright.
One example is the idea that your willpower is a limited resource that, like a muscle, becomes exhausted when it is used. Another is that power posing — standing like a superhero for two minutes — makes you feel bolder, reduces stress hormones and increases testosterone. Both have fallen aside due to failed replications.
These aren’t dusty, arcane findings limited to academic journals; a TED talk by social psychologist Amy Cuddy on the effectiveness of power posing has been viewed over 45 million times and is near the top of the list of the most popular TED talks of all time.
Yeah … when I hear the announcer say … “studies have found” … I actually hear; blah, blah, blah, Ginger … blah, blah, blah, Ginger … blah, blah, blah … rubbish.
*
“your willpower is a limited resource that,
like a muscle, becomes exhausted”
try telling that to a navy seal.
*
One example is the idea that your willpower is a limited resource that, like a muscle, becomes exhausted when it is used.
They could have read some real wisdom and found that out…
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
It was Fox Krauthammer who said it best.. He complained that they all had to attend group therapy sessions together…The insane practicing their own insanity.. He left the practice…. psychologists are bat shit crazy…
“the effectiveness of power posing has been viewed over 45 million times”
WTF? Like Kate always says, we need a plague.
Why would anyone think that the stank of dishonesty that hangs over many fields of science these days would not permeate the peer review system too?
Never forget, the media is strongly complicit in promoting these ‘frauds’ too, regularly manipulating one-off studies into a day or two of entertainment. The wilder the headline they can manufacture, the more attention they give the study. These dishonest hacks also take great care to pick and choose those papers that help push their leftarded narrative.
To that end, did we not just hear the other day the bizarre claim from some professor that autism is a conservative disease?
Soft Science.
Because mathematics and logic is hard.
For Sale 1 cape, blue and one electric fan
dont tell this guy:
https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/002/477/389/bb74728879676f636440ff50fc0748d3_original.jpg?w=680&fit=max&v=1408816699&auto=format&q=92&s=b8be76929f9be1330474255f2e3b8297
But the Navy Seal has trained BOTH. He trains his muscles with weights and drill, but he trains his willpower when he goes on the six-day survival trek (or whatever it is) as part of the training.
Willpower IS like a muscle. If you train it and use it, it gets stronger. If you neglect it, it gets weak and sloppy, like my abs.
Indeed! When I offered to provide any help I could to the psychologist attending to my then wife, she replied, “I won’t talk with you, I haven’t evaluated you.”
The replication crisis haa deeper roots than problems with statistics, p-hacking and post-experiment hypothesis generation (Harking) and publish or perish. Publish or perish does kinda indicate the biggest problem: too many researchers and grad students chasing too few important and politically correct research opportunities. *important and politically correct* being the key words.
The bulk of the breakthrough research was done in the previous generation(s) but the proliferation of doctorates and grad students in the soft science fields requires research regardless of importance. So, we see a proliferation of silly science to fulfill the publish or perish requirement. Ironically, there may still important breakthroughs -but- research in those areas may conflict with progressive ideology so that research is forbidden. Your career would be destroyed if you researched flaws in intersectional grievance-mongering, benefits of traditional families, the importance of IQ or heritability of other advantageous personality traits and, basically, anything that makes progressives uncomfortable.
The answer may be as simple as restricting the supply of soft science researchers, encouraging diversity of thought and letting go of progressive fundamentalism.
oh, oh oh jeez C.O., I just sent an email to the honchos where Im attending a history course inviting them the stand on the bytches head in the form of high level personnel at MY university contacting high level personnel at HER university to do the actually standing-on-head.
search ‘MacLean Duke University autism’ or whatever.
I have autism. it put me in a truly *enviable* position of a 30 year career in IT (info tech) with OUR aspie inclination for extreme detail.
I still bawled my eyes out when I had to put down my dear black lab after 10+ years of unconditional mutual devotion.
In a related topic, S.Pinker has been doing a lot of interviews to promote his new book. One of the ones I read touched on the crisis in soft sciences. From what I understand, he suggests more mixing and collaboration between soft and hard sciences. I think the hope is that the structure and discipline of hard/physical science research would help non-STEMs and creativity of soft sciences would help STEMs. That’d be great but what if the worst case scenario happens? STEMs pick up the horrible habits and nonsensical thinking of soft science and soft science completely overruns and hobbles the progress of STEM.
In chemistry terms: mix water and acid. If you do it properly then you succeed in lowering the pH of water in a controlled manner. Do it wrong and BOOM! you experience intense pain as exposed flesh begins to dissolve before your eyes.
Considering the toxic, aggressive state of soft science – which is the most likely result? Water into acid or acid into water? I’d confidently bet on the the face-melted-by-acid scenario if you mix STEM and soft science.
KB, tell me if this sounds ‘authetic’.
Im 67 next b’day.
I have regular access to a gymnasium where I regularly shove astonishingly amount of weight.
anyone asks, I tell them the trick.
the trick is to know the REAL challenge is 95% in yer head.
THAT is where one overcomes boredom, fatigue, hunger, doubt, distractions, etc ad infinitum.
some of them ‘get it’ and appreciate the advise. I use my OWN performance *which they have just witnessed* as proof of the trick.
the trick is knowing the trick.
God Bless us all here promoting truth and success and justice.
Isnt that exactly what peer review is?
And isn’t that a perfect snapshot of our declining culture? Massive interest in poseuring … and very little in DOing. Hint: Success and self-esteem is built on a foundation of DOing, not posteuring. Go DO something. Better yet … DO something useful … wanted or needed by your fellow inhabitants of the planet. How about starting with “viewing” the Khan Academy? Attain some REAL knowledge. Some REAL skills.