Conjectures and refutations online dating os x weather widget not updating
A bunch of people pointed me to a New York Times article by Susan Dominus about Amy Cuddy, the psychology researcher and Ted-talk star famous for the following claim (made in a paper written with Dana Carney and Andy Yap and published in 2010): offer some empirical evidence for, failed to show up in a series of external replication studies, first by Ranehill et al.
in 2015 and then more recently various other research teams (see, for example, here). paper was an analysis by Joe Simmons and Uri Simonsohn explaining how Carney, Cuddy, and Yap could’ve gotten it wrong in the first place.
Also awkward was a full retraction by first author Dana Carney, who detailed many ways in which the data were handled in order to pull out apparently statistically significant findings. [No, upon reflection, I don’t think the article was fair, as it places, without rebuttal, misrepresentations of my work and that of Dana Carney — AG], given the inevitable space limitations.
I wouldn’t’ve chosen to have written an article about Amy Cuddy—I think Eva Ranehill or Uri Simonsohn would be much more interesting subjects.
Suppose he’d fit a hierarchical model or done a preregistered replication or used some other procedure to avoid jumping at patterns in noise. And then he most likely would’ve found nothing distinguishable from a null effect, no publication in JPSP (no, I don’t think they’d publish the results of a large multi-year study finding no effect for a phenomenon that most psychologists don’t believe in the first place), no article on Bem in the NYT . (I assume it depends on context, that power pose will do more good than harm in some settings, and more harm than good in others).
The challenge for Cuddy—and in all seriousness I hope she follows up on this—is to be this inspirational figure, to communicate to those millions, in a way that respects the science.
I just think it’s too bad that the Carney/Cuddy/Yap paper got all that publicity and that Cuddy got herself tangled up in defending it.The only thing that really bugged me about the NYT article is when Cuddy is quoted as saying, “Why not help social psychologists instead of attacking them on your blog? I remember this came up when Dominus interviewed me for the story, and I responded right away that I helped social psychologists! I’ve given many talks during the past few years to psychology departments and at professional meetings, and I’ve published several papers in psychology and related fields on how to do better applied research, for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. In summary, I think Dominus’s article was , but I do wish she hadn’t let that particular false implication by Cuddy, the claim that I didn’t help social psychologists, go unchallenged.I even wrote an article, with Hilda Geurts, for The Clinical Neuropsychologist! Then again, I also don’t like it that Cuddy baselessly attacked the work of Simmons and Simonsohn and to my knowledge never has apologized for that. .” I never saw Cuddy present any evidence for these claims.) Good people can do bad science.So, yeah, I do spend some time helping social psychologists. (I’m thinking of Cuddy’s statement, quoted here, that Simmons and Simonsohn “are flat-out wrong. Indeed, if you have bad data you’ll do bad science (or, at best, report null findings), no matter how good a person you are.Dominus also writes, “Gelman considers himself someone who is doing others the favor of pointing out their errors, a service for which he would be grateful, he says.” This too is accurate, and let me also emphasize that this is a service for which I not only grateful when people point out my errors. Let me continue by saying something I’ve said before, which is that being a scientist, and being a good person, does not necessarily mean that you’re doing good science.
Search for conjectures and refutations online dating:
I have the impression that Cuddy and others think the science of power pose needs to be defended in part because of its role in this larger edifice, but I recommend that Cuddy and her colleagues go the other way: follow the lead of Dana Carney, Eva Ranehill, et al., and abandon the scientific claims, which ultimately were based on an overinterpretation of noise (again, recall the time-reversal heuristic)—and then let the inspirational Ted talk advice fly free of that scientific dead end.