TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is

165 点作者 Ariarule超过 1 年前

25 条评论

NoZebra120vClip超过 1 年前
As I read the article, it occurred to me that one of the fundamental flaws of modern psychology (and its offshoots such as psychiatry and psychotherapy) is that they all tend toward a solipsistic, individualist treatment of the self. Other than specialized fields like group psychology, psychologists really try to ignore the collectivist aspect to societies; they try to treat one person at a time while ignoring our families, our communities. When they do make efforts at integrating these larger groups in treatment, it&#x27;s an afterthought, and it&#x27;s never quite consensual, because, after all, in this world, to treat someone (especially to drug someone) you require their direct consent, and even in couples therapy, there is usually one less-than-willing partner who just accedes to keep things together. Furthermore, it&#x27;s always through an attitude of &quot;here is one person who is ill and needs to heal, let&#x27;s rally around him for his treatment.&quot; That is not how it works. People develop mental illnesses oftentimes from traumas and abuse and decades of shame. Therefore, the entire family, the whole community, needs to make efforts at healing if they are to stop this vicious circle. It is not merely one man&#x27;s problem, it is not one man&#x27;s responsibility, and it is not one man&#x27;s shame.<p>Speaking personally, the genesis of my mental issues is clearly not &quot;chemical imbalance&quot; but rather my relationship to the world. What I heard and saw on TV, my experiences with Mom, Dad, and Sister, my formative years in school and church--with, you guessed it, other people.<p>I see a lot of pop-psychology YouTube clickbait that goes &quot;Heal your relationships! Here&#x27;s how!&quot; and I don&#x27;t doubt that people can take certain action with willing parties and heal certain relationships, but geez, guys, it took me 50 years to get to this point of isolation and alienation, and I alone will never heal relationships that have taken such a beating. It would take collective, cooperative will and action to do so.<p>Treating one person at a time with these methods is like trying to catch the ocean and dye it green, one drop at a time. It just doesn&#x27;t make sense. That&#x27;s only one of many reasons why there are poor outcomes, especially for psychiatry, where they just toss you in a looney bin with lots of other messed-up people, and now that&#x27;s your community and that&#x27;s your reality, deal with it.
评论 #37317751 未加载
评论 #37315887 未加载
评论 #37315965 未加载
评论 #37319568 未加载
评论 #37316682 未加载
评论 #37316540 未加载
评论 #37316904 未加载
评论 #37318896 未加载
评论 #37320025 未加载
评论 #37319819 未加载
评论 #37317582 未加载
mdorazio超过 1 年前
Do yourself a favor and read the whole article.<p>The author does a fantastic job of summing up the big issues facing psychology and a lot of my own thoughts regarding the academic side of the social sciences in general. So very few people in the field seem to care about the basics of the scientific method (reproducible experiments, hypotheses that can be falsified, etc.) or of producing research that can really be applied in useful ways. And unfortunately so much of it seems to bleed over into pop science and business &quot;coaching&quot; these days, too.
评论 #37316254 未加载
评论 #37319249 未加载
huitzitziltzin超过 1 年前
IMO there is a pretty simple partial explanation: no one reads anyone else’s research.<p>When you’re a grad student you have to read a few methods and applications papers. When you’re a professor you have to stay on top of what matters in your field but you mostly attend conferences and seminars for that.<p>Other than that… we don’t read anyone’s work. Indeed nearly all research isn’t <i>ever</i> cited and the fraction of cited papers not in the “central methodology” category above which are actually carefully read is probably extremely low.
评论 #37316257 未加载
ketzo超过 1 年前
If you liked this, do yourself a favor and dig through the author&#x27;s archive.<p>Insightful, funny writer who takes a really pragmatic view of his own field in a time of great upheaval. Can&#x27;t recommend him enough.
davesque超过 1 年前
This article made me laugh out loud more than once. My favorite quote:<p>&gt; Plenty of these findings are interesting and some are useful (especially if you are a rich, lonely monkey).<p>You&#x27;ll have to read the article for the context.
derbOac超过 1 年前
The irony of the piece is that psychology&#x27;s greatest contribution to science over the last several decades is probably meta-science, or empirical introspection about the scientific process itself.<p>Modern meta-analysis has its roots in clinical and educational psychology, and now there&#x27;s the lens focused on replicability and preregistration. If history is any guide, about 20 years from now the methods that come out of this will start to be applied widely and routinely in biomedical research and then elsewhere.<p>The useless fat in science isn&#x27;t limited to psychology: there have been controversial articles all over the place about decreasing scientific returns for investments, and drowning out of innovation by incentivized noise. Sure, maybe there&#x27;s less fat in some fields than others, but there&#x27;s plenty of fat to go around.<p>What&#x27;s maybe unique about psychology is how much outrage and exposure there is about it. Other fields might be in denial but the time will come.<p>Also, part of the reason we don&#x27;t mourn the loss of fabricated or unreplicable studies is because the people who hung their hat on it continue to do so, burying their head in the sand. Everyone else probably was silently waiting for more evidence to come, and came it did, and then it was swept under the rug of self-correcting science.<p>Modern academics is sort of a marvel in how much bullshit it can absorb without consequence. It&#x27;s like the The Blob of modern institutions.
owenversteeg超过 1 年前
Great summary of the field and very well written. Particularly:<p>&gt;The second formerly useful proto-paradigm is something like “situations matter.” This idea maintains that people&#x27;s contexts have immense power over their behavior, and the strongest version maintains that the only difference between sinners and saints is their situations. The most famous psychology studies of all time are “situations matter” studies: the Milgram shock experiments, the Asch conformity studies, the bystander effect, the Stanford Prison Experiment (since revealed to be much more of a scripted play than a study). The now-much-ridiculed “social priming” studies, like the one where you unscramble words about being old and then walk more slowly, are also “situations matter” studies. So are “nudges,” where tiny changes in situations bring big changes in behavior, like redoing the layout of a cafeteria to encourage people to eat more veggies.<p>Does anyone know any good situationist studies aside from the big names?
paulpauper超过 1 年前
Let us assume half of studies do not replicate. this does not tell us about the implications of those that do. I think there is the tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water here. STEM, especially computer science, has its own bullshit papers problem too. Arxiv is full of 7-page computer science papers with 7 -co authors about things that feel like pure resume padding and very light on any sort of actual science or rigour. stuff like &quot;hate speech and the algorithms on twitter&quot; Same for math papers in which common formulas are rederived. The problem is the incentives are aligned to favor quantity over quality, and this is in all fields . a huge resume&#x2F;cv full of items looks more impressive.
syndicatedjelly超过 1 年前
In the words of a psych professor in college, “Psychology is still struggling to become a science.”
评论 #37316082 未加载
ed-209超过 1 年前
&gt; There’s a paper written by both Ariely and Gino in which they might have independently faked the data for two separate studies in the same article.<p>Two fakers collaborating might equally have conspired. Either way this is hilarious.
gnramires超过 1 年前
I&#x27;m not a psychologist, but I believe CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) has made pretty good progress in the recent decades. Is that correct?<p>I think studying well defined and important things is... extremely important :) I think for example it should be possible to measure remission from depression.<p>I also think though that psychology could &#x27;make philosophy out of its physics&#x27; (in an analogy with an experimental field like chemistry or material science), and form theories about happiness, well being, etc.. that are grounded in insightful philosophies. And then try to measure or make some progress and recommendations to guide the field (like, how should we define well being, how should we measure it, and what kind of interventions help it).
评论 #37321533 未加载
评论 #37322291 未加载
rPlayer6554超过 1 年前
My question after reading is, why aren&#x27;t psychologists focusing their effort on real problems? Some of the &quot;problems&quot; the listed articles bring up seem vague and useless. I am not even vaguely familiar with this field, so I hesitate to assert any more than that. Other fields have useful problems they solve and that&#x27;s were famous breakthroughs come from.<p>Who cares if monkeys are paying for sex if people are killing themselves from depression? Are there not tons of psychological illnesses where progress could be made in new techniques to help people live their lives well? Maybe reduce the need for drugs?
javajosh超过 1 年前
If you tell people 60% of the DSM-V[0] is fake, they might wake up and listen. Assuming that the DSM-V is based on peer-reviewed research, that ought to be the case.)<p>0 - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;DSM-5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;DSM-5</a>
评论 #37319796 未加载
mensetmanusman超过 1 年前
“Participants said they wanted cleaning products more after they were forced to argue against something they believed (vs. arguing for the thing they believed).” So glad for studies like this.<p>Psychology might be too complex for the current scientific method. Millions of variables and not enough humans to control.
raincole超过 1 年前
I don&#x27;t even know whether I should read pop-science books any more. Or read anything any more.<p>At one point the 10,000 hours rule was so popular that it almost became common sense. And it&#x27;s bull. Ego depletion was so well known. And boom it&#x27;s not replicable either. Is everything just food pyramid?
评论 #37316684 未加载
评论 #37317317 未加载
bsmith89超过 1 年前
While I strongly empathize with the author&#x27;s feelings on this (I&#x27;ve had similar feelings in my own field), I also want to voice an opposing viewpoint:<p>&gt; Good&#x2F;useful&#x2F;valuable&#x2F;important&#x2F;positive-ROI science doesn&#x27;t necessarily require everyone to know what the major discoveries are nor even care when 60% of studies fail to replicate.<p>Handful of reasons I feel this way:<p>- If I care deeply about exactly 10 of the 100 publications in my sub-field, and you care about a different 10, it may not matter much to either of us when 60 of them are later refuted. I may have not cared about those specific conclusions, already been skeptical about them, or have several other studies and my own unpublished results to maintain my confidence in the broader idea.<p>- While we all have great examples of dramatic upheavals in _other_ people&#x27;s fields — pick your favorite of cosmology, genetic engineering, mathematics, etc. — when you&#x27;re immersed in it, science is much more incremental, subtle, and complex. Congratulations! You&#x27;ve ventured on beyond the Dunning-Kruger effect. Scientific progress is not a series of miracles.<p>- Relatedly, I&#x27;m guessing most scientists are much more aware of the shortcomings in their own and their peers&#x27; research. Do keep this in mind while reading the perspective of an insider. Be skeptical, by all means, but not only of psychology.
评论 #37316707 未加载
评论 #37316556 未加载
momirlan超过 1 年前
just shows that much of academia is just smoke and mirrors. a cosplay with breaches.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK超过 1 年前
Isn&#x27;t marketing psychology? People will buy something with probability x% if you hammer it into their eyeballs N times. Looks like hard enough science. And one responsible for half of NASDAQ market cap :)
blastersyndrome超过 1 年前
Let me ask a simple question: What can be done about this, other than violence? I do not see a legal path going forward where all these corrupt individuals get removed from their positions of power.<p>An eye for an eye.
评论 #37330136 未加载
LegitShady超过 1 年前
agree or not, the author is a great writer with some hilarious lines. &quot;I am just bunch of bees!&quot;
esbeeb超过 1 年前
Silly question: why can&#x27;t an AI be written which can read through all these piles of psychology papers, looking for various kinds of characteristics of fraudulent or sloppy scholarship, then summarizing its findings, assigning suggested reputation scores to various papers and authors?
评论 #37321412 未加载
esbeeb超过 1 年前
A scathing lambastement.
dang超过 1 年前
Previous threads in this saga (and some related ones). Others?<p><i>I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37315292">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37315292</a> - Aug 2023 (94 comments)<p><i>Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud?</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37152030">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37152030</a> - Aug 2023 (13 comments)<p><i>Harvard professor Francesca Gino was accused of faking data</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36968670">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36968670</a> - Aug 2023 (146 comments)<p><i>Fabricated data in research about honesty</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36907829">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36907829</a> - July 2023 (46 comments)<p><i>Fraudulent data raise questions about superstar honesty researcher (2021)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36726485">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36726485</a> - July 2023 (33 comments)<p><i>UCLA professor refuses to cover for Dan Ariely in issue of data provenance</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36684242">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36684242</a> - July 2023 (131 comments)<p><i>Harvard ethics professor allegedly fabricated multiple studies</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36665247">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36665247</a> - July 2023 (215 comments)<p><i>Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36424090">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36424090</a> - June 2023 (201 comments)<p><i>Data Falsificada (Part 1): “Clusterfake” – Data Colada</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36374255">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36374255</a> - June 2023 (7 comments)<p><i>Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28264097">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28264097</a> - Aug 2021 (102 comments)<p><i>A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28257860">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28257860</a> - Aug 2021 (90 comments)<p><i>Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about dishonesty</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28210642">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28210642</a> - Aug 2021 (51 comments)
scrubs超过 1 年前
Great read
zug_zug超过 1 年前
Psychology is the study of the most complex machine in existence, a machine smart enough to do psychology. Of course it&#x27;s really difficult to test it compared to simpler sciences.<p>But if the author is trying to insinuate no meaningful progress in psychology was made in the last X years because of some twitter poll then that&#x27;s doubtful -- scientists getting to the point they can scan neurons and reconstruct what you see through the activations.<p>I do agree that you could generate endless reams of pseudo-data about the human behavior by labeling and classifying tiny patterns, and that that&#x27;s not very practical. But that doesn&#x27;t invalidate the rest.<p>Perhaps one way to operationalize psychology would be to take a huge dataset, e.g. 1 million tinder profiles, and have a contest to identify the .1% that got married or something (and how long they stayed married for).
评论 #37316953 未加载