This reminds me of that Harvard professor Francesca Gino who built a career based on studying honesty and ethical behavior and had studies like "If you sign an honesty pledge at the top of an exam...
This reminds me of that Harvard professor Francesca Gino who built a career based on studying honesty and ethical behavior and had studies like "If you sign an honesty pledge at the top of an exam you are less likely to cheat", but then it came out that she had been fabricating data to make it look like she got a positive result.
I love this, I didn't know some of these failed to be replicated. It's so easy to incorporate knowledge without thinking about it critically when it feels intuitively right, which is often the...
I love this, I didn't know some of these failed to be replicated.
It's so easy to incorporate knowledge without thinking about it critically when it feels intuitively right, which is often the case in cognitive psychology.
This is not a field I'm particularly knowledgeable about... It is surprising to me that so much of the listed research is fairly new (very few items are from before 2010, and only 1 or 2 from last...
This is not a field I'm particularly knowledgeable about...
It is surprising to me that so much of the listed research is fairly new (very few items are from before 2010, and only 1 or 2 from last milleniun).
At a glance I fail to see how it could be "corner stone" research of the field, but then again I know almost nothing of cognitive psychology.
I think "famous" in the author's title is referring more to pop culture fame and not necessarily foundational cognitive science findings. A lot of the older perhaps more traditional...
I think "famous" in the author's title is referring more to pop culture fame and not necessarily foundational cognitive science findings.
very few items are from before 2010
A lot of the older perhaps more traditional pop-culture-famous experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo...) have failed to replicate as well. Humans are rather finicky... especially the scientists doing the psychology research it would seem... gotta get a paycheck somehow
I've taken a few psychology classes but it's hard for me to recall really foundational cognitive psychology studies. Hopefully someone more enlightened than I can answer this--I guess it is not too difficult to look at Wikipedia
Even something like personality psychology has Big 5 which sounds more like a type of gum or chewing tobacco but at least it is tangible and provides a foundation of common vocabulary...
I guess I'm uncertain why you reference being a cornerstone. I don't see that claim in the article? I have heard many of these cases cited mostly in pop psychology articles, so it's nice to see...
I guess I'm uncertain why you reference being a cornerstone. I don't see that claim in the article?
I have heard many of these cases cited mostly in pop psychology articles, so it's nice to see them highlighted as not replicated.
You're right, I just interpreted it like that based on that these where selected and both "biggest disgraced results" and "many widely accepted results" where used by the article author to...
I guess I'm uncertain why you reference being a cornerstone. I don't see that claim in the article?
You're right, I just interpreted it like that based on that these where selected and both "biggest disgraced results" and "many widely accepted results" where used by the article author to describe the selection.
But I really don't know anything about cognitive psychology, this was just my impression based on the article.
Yeah in my experience these are fairly commonly discussed outside the field but several I've known were considered "debunked" for years now. I think they're mostly ones that get discussed in media...
Yeah in my experience these are fairly commonly discussed outside the field but several I've known were considered "debunked" for years now. I think they're mostly ones that get discussed in media or have stuck with people at large.
(I have psych and counseling degrees, but mostly engage with research through the same news articles as everyone else these days.)
Another famous one is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was never fully replicated—only one partial replication that didn't share any sign of the original conclusion—and its methodology has been...
Another famous one is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was never fully replicated—only one partial replication that didn't share any sign of the original conclusion—and its methodology has been criticized for being pretty sloppy.
I keep hearing it trotted out by otherwise smart people as some sort of grand truth and revelation about human nature and the human capacity for cruelty.
I remember stereotype threat showing up repeatedly in Science News when I was young, and unconscious bias measurement being the hot thing more recently, it's helpful to learn those failed to hold...
I remember stereotype threat showing up repeatedly in Science News when I was young, and unconscious bias measurement being the hot thing more recently, it's helpful to learn those failed to hold up. I had previously seen multiple criticisms of the marshmallow one, not sure if that's just random what I happened to come across or if it's actually had more widespread debunking.
The bilingual one I think was a response to what had been active prejudice against children growing up bilingual. I had a first-generation Korean-American roommate in college who spoke not a word of Korean because her mother believed it would have been harmful for her to grow up knowing anything but English. It makes sense being bilingual doesn't change a person's intelligence, but I think the article could have been improved by covering both directions - no, it doesn't make a person smarter, but neither does it make them stupider.
I remember doing an online test on specifically the mechanism mentioned in the article, published by some of the researchers, probably over a decade ago when it was trending during Reddit's...
unconscious bias measurement being the hot thing more recently
I remember doing an online test on specifically the mechanism mentioned in the article, published by some of the researchers, probably over a decade ago when it was trending during Reddit's "social justice" era - in retrospect it's quite ridiculous how many pages of frustrating online arguments and shouting matches were written based on bad research. Anyway, I did the test as honestly as I could and the results told me that I do not have any bias against obese people. That was when I decided it's probably bullshit.
My favorite crash out from behavioral psychology was watching mouse utopia go down in flames. I still see people quoting that study all the time (especially in conservative circles) as if it had...
My favorite crash out from behavioral psychology was watching mouse utopia go down in flames. I still see people quoting that study all the time (especially in conservative circles) as if it had any credibility at all. It does not, and no other experiments following up on it have ever managed to replicate any of it, in mice or in humans.
The only credible info to come out of it is the concept that maintaining a degree of personal space and private time has some beneficial effects on societal behaviors. In other words, constant enforced hyper-socialization is where the real 'damage' comes from in the utopia. It's not population, access to mates, or any of the hundred other nonsense ideas that people use this debunked experiment to justify.
Re: "women find hot guys more attractive while ovulating" I thought that women just find every guy attractive when they're ovulating. My wife told me once that she had a few "wow, body. Really?...
Re: "women find hot guys more attractive while ovulating"
I thought that women just find every guy attractive when they're ovulating. My wife told me once that she had a few "wow, body. Really? We're all hot and bothered because we saw the greasy convenience store janitor? Calm down" moments when she was still single.
Ironically, due to the replication crisis, I don't actually know what's true without doing much more of a deep dive, but I've also seen that women are just more sexual when ovulating, which would...
Ironically, due to the replication crisis, I don't actually know what's true without doing much more of a deep dive, but I've also seen that women are just more sexual when ovulating, which would mean that it's not about men. It's about who they're attracted to. I've also seen that women are more attractive to men when they're ovulating, which would mean that signals are being sent by ovulating women in some manner.
All of which to say hormones do obviously impact you but I don't actually know what has scientific backing anymore
This really is a problem, isn't it? I recently listened to a long interview with a scientist who's been doing research on something that on surface sounds very similar to the "ego depletion...
Ironically, due to the replication crisis, I don't actually know what's true without doing much more of a deep dive
This really is a problem, isn't it? I recently listened to a long interview with a scientist who's been doing research on something that on surface sounds very similar to the "ego depletion effect" and "willpower battery" except it's about the ability to concentrate on certain tasks, iirc also working memory and maybe some other metrics, and ways to recharge the ability. Which to a layperson sounds very close to "having or lacking the willpower to do something". But the research looks solid, the dude's lab has been working on isolating very specific aspects of the effect to understand how it works and so far it all holds up.
I think that articles like these definitely make the overall situation better, but I know that many people incapable or unwilling to look deeper will throw out the baby with the bathwater with regards to research that seems closely related but holds up. Hopefully most of the "damage" is only going to be annoying arguments on reddit.
I've been hornier when ovulating at times for sure (though it's far from as consistent as a lot of people make it out to be), but I haven't noticed it changing who I am attracted to on any axis.
I thought that women just find every guy attractive when they're ovulating.
I've been hornier when ovulating at times for sure (though it's far from as consistent as a lot of people make it out to be), but I haven't noticed it changing who I am attracted to on any axis.
People are all different which is why a lot of psychology studies fail to replicate and it is why social studies are held to a lower "P-Value" standard than other sciences (<0.1 can be pretty good...
People are all different which is why a lot of psychology studies fail to replicate and it is why social studies are held to a lower "P-Value" standard than other sciences (<0.1 can be pretty good while in something like materials science <0.001 would be expected).
But it might be possible that your wife is misattributing something the ugly person did rather than, or more than, pure visual stimulus. E.g. they confidently handled a complex situation, etc
This reminds me of that Harvard professor Francesca Gino who built a career based on studying honesty and ethical behavior and had studies like "If you sign an honesty pledge at the top of an exam you are less likely to cheat", but then it came out that she had been fabricating data to make it look like she got a positive result.
I love this, I didn't know some of these failed to be replicated.
It's so easy to incorporate knowledge without thinking about it critically when it feels intuitively right, which is often the case in cognitive psychology.
As my wife, who is a licensed psychologist and a behaviorist says, the reason cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) works is entirely the B part.
Sounds exactly like what a behaviorist would say! /J
This is not a field I'm particularly knowledgeable about...
It is surprising to me that so much of the listed research is fairly new (very few items are from before 2010, and only 1 or 2 from last milleniun).
At a glance I fail to see how it could be "corner stone" research of the field, but then again I know almost nothing of cognitive psychology.
I think "famous" in the author's title is referring more to pop culture fame and not necessarily foundational cognitive science findings.
A lot of the older perhaps more traditional pop-culture-famous experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo...) have failed to replicate as well. Humans are rather finicky... especially the scientists doing the psychology research it would seem... gotta get a paycheck somehow
I've taken a few psychology classes but it's hard for me to recall really foundational cognitive psychology studies. Hopefully someone more enlightened than I can answer this--I guess it is not too difficult to look at Wikipedia
Even something like personality psychology has Big 5 which sounds more like a type of gum or chewing tobacco but at least it is tangible and provides a foundation of common vocabulary...
I guess I'm uncertain why you reference being a cornerstone. I don't see that claim in the article?
I have heard many of these cases cited mostly in pop psychology articles, so it's nice to see them highlighted as not replicated.
You're right, I just interpreted it like that based on that these where selected and both "biggest disgraced results" and "many widely accepted results" where used by the article author to describe the selection.
But I really don't know anything about cognitive psychology, this was just my impression based on the article.
Yeah in my experience these are fairly commonly discussed outside the field but several I've known were considered "debunked" for years now. I think they're mostly ones that get discussed in media or have stuck with people at large.
(I have psych and counseling degrees, but mostly engage with research through the same news articles as everyone else these days.)
Another famous one is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was never fully replicated—only one partial replication that didn't share any sign of the original conclusion—and its methodology has been criticized for being pretty sloppy.
I keep hearing it trotted out by otherwise smart people as some sort of grand truth and revelation about human nature and the human capacity for cruelty.
I remember stereotype threat showing up repeatedly in Science News when I was young, and unconscious bias measurement being the hot thing more recently, it's helpful to learn those failed to hold up. I had previously seen multiple criticisms of the marshmallow one, not sure if that's just random what I happened to come across or if it's actually had more widespread debunking.
The bilingual one I think was a response to what had been active prejudice against children growing up bilingual. I had a first-generation Korean-American roommate in college who spoke not a word of Korean because her mother believed it would have been harmful for her to grow up knowing anything but English. It makes sense being bilingual doesn't change a person's intelligence, but I think the article could have been improved by covering both directions - no, it doesn't make a person smarter, but neither does it make them stupider.
I remember doing an online test on specifically the mechanism mentioned in the article, published by some of the researchers, probably over a decade ago when it was trending during Reddit's "social justice" era - in retrospect it's quite ridiculous how many pages of frustrating online arguments and shouting matches were written based on bad research. Anyway, I did the test as honestly as I could and the results told me that I do not have any bias against obese people. That was when I decided it's probably bullshit.
My favorite crash out from behavioral psychology was watching mouse utopia go down in flames. I still see people quoting that study all the time (especially in conservative circles) as if it had any credibility at all. It does not, and no other experiments following up on it have ever managed to replicate any of it, in mice or in humans.
The only credible info to come out of it is the concept that maintaining a degree of personal space and private time has some beneficial effects on societal behaviors. In other words, constant enforced hyper-socialization is where the real 'damage' comes from in the utopia. It's not population, access to mates, or any of the hundred other nonsense ideas that people use this debunked experiment to justify.
Re: "women find hot guys more attractive while ovulating"
I thought that women just find every guy attractive when they're ovulating. My wife told me once that she had a few "wow, body. Really? We're all hot and bothered because we saw the greasy convenience store janitor? Calm down" moments when she was still single.
Ironically, due to the replication crisis, I don't actually know what's true without doing much more of a deep dive, but I've also seen that women are just more sexual when ovulating, which would mean that it's not about men. It's about who they're attracted to. I've also seen that women are more attractive to men when they're ovulating, which would mean that signals are being sent by ovulating women in some manner.
All of which to say hormones do obviously impact you but I don't actually know what has scientific backing anymore
This really is a problem, isn't it? I recently listened to a long interview with a scientist who's been doing research on something that on surface sounds very similar to the "ego depletion effect" and "willpower battery" except it's about the ability to concentrate on certain tasks, iirc also working memory and maybe some other metrics, and ways to recharge the ability. Which to a layperson sounds very close to "having or lacking the willpower to do something". But the research looks solid, the dude's lab has been working on isolating very specific aspects of the effect to understand how it works and so far it all holds up.
I think that articles like these definitely make the overall situation better, but I know that many people incapable or unwilling to look deeper will throw out the baby with the bathwater with regards to research that seems closely related but holds up. Hopefully most of the "damage" is only going to be annoying arguments on reddit.
I've been hornier when ovulating at times for sure (though it's far from as consistent as a lot of people make it out to be), but I haven't noticed it changing who I am attracted to on any axis.
People are all different which is why a lot of psychology studies fail to replicate and it is why social studies are held to a lower "P-Value" standard than other sciences (<0.1 can be pretty good while in something like materials science <0.001 would be expected).
But it might be possible that your wife is misattributing something the ugly person did rather than, or more than, pure visual stimulus. E.g. they confidently handled a complex situation, etc
I can only speak from experience, listening to Mozart has not made me any smarter.