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。

They studied dishonesty – Was their work a lie?

210 点作者 chrisaycock超过 1 年前

20 条评论

loeg超过 1 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;ifxn6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;ifxn6</a>
neilv超过 1 年前
&gt; <i>When she expressed her doubts, the adviser snapped at her, “Don’t ever say that!”</i><p>I don&#x27;t know whether the advisor was referring to collegial decorum in how good faith research is discussed, <i>or</i> more like whisper networks about bad faith that are impolitic or scared to speak aloud.<p>But I did actually once get a snap response like that. I was chatting with another grad student, who&#x27;d mentioned a student who&#x27;d just arrive, who&#x27;d be working for Prof. X. I hadn&#x27;t worked with Prof. X, but I happened to see them treat multiple students poorly over time, belittling the student, disciplining them in front of groups of others, giving them non-research chores like a personal assistant rather than a research assistant, not letting them pursue their research, etc., so I blurted out, concerned, &quot;Oh no!&quot;, and that X was a bad advisor.<p>This other grad student surprised me by snapping back at me, sternly, &quot;You shouldn&#x27;t say that!&quot;, and something about reputations. That other grad student&#x27;s parent was a prominent academic, so I figured they were admonishing me in some decorum that they were brought up in, and which they knew better than me.<p>It might&#x27;ve been weeks later, that same grad student came back to me, apologetically, and spoke with surprise, of how miserable the new student was, once they realized the career disaster that they&#x27;d stumbled into.<p>Epilogue: A long time later, that grad student, who&#x27;d admonished me and then apologized, contacted me about a different professor, because they knew a prospective new student of that professor, they had some suspicions, and they thought that I might know something. The truth was much worse than they suspected, and the student fled after hearing only a little, in vague terms.<p>BTW, there&#x27;s apparently a lot of all kinds of poor behavior, but the people doing it are almost never cliched evil, IME. For example, a couple times I saw Prof. X do something kind, and I think probably they had something like a very stern taskmaster upbringing that caused their other side. There was also another one, who was kind to me, but I later learned that they were decidedly unkind to some others, and were actually nudged out. And one of the most body-count professors I saw was actually genuinely warm and charismatic and humble in some ways, and I don&#x27;t think they realized that they seemed to have emotional&#x2F;cognitive problems that they let kill other people&#x27;s careers in an awful way. Off-the-record gossip with grad students and (later) professors will tell you of all sorts of other misbehavior, especially by people who aren&#x27;t all bad, but very driven and pressured. (Raging narcissist&#x2F;psycho, however, seems relatively rare, or their trail of bodies doesn&#x27;t survive long enough to complain about it. Maybe the worse people tend to go for careers with more money and power?) And, back to this article, I once met with Ariely, and he came across as empathetic, down-to-earth, and of goodwill, so -- iff it turns out that he&#x27;s found to have done something academically dishonest -- again, that would seem like a bit of human frailty, in a more wholesome larger picture.<p>(Note: I&#x27;ve been a grad student a few places, and have talked with people at countless other places, so am not calling out a particular school or person. A lot of people have seemed paranoid about saying anything at all, myself included, so please don&#x27;t speculate, or I think that would have even more of a chilling effect than already exists.)
评论 #37718899 未加载
dblack12705超过 1 年前
In case anyone hasn’t read it, the Datacolada article demonstrating Ariely committed fraud is a great read and extremely convincing.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;datacolada.org&#x2F;98" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;datacolada.org&#x2F;98</a>
评论 #37718264 未加载
评论 #37719480 未加载
评论 #37718497 未加载
评论 #37715868 未加载
评论 #37717453 未加载
rdtsc超过 1 年前
&gt; In statements, each disowned any responsibility. Gino, unaware that she was also being investigated by Data Colada, praised the team for its determination and skill: “The work they do takes talent and courage and vastly improves our research field.” Ariely, apparently taken aback, underscored that he had been the only author who handled the data. He then seemed to imply that the findings could have been falsified only by someone at the insurance company.<p>The insurance company then showed their data and it wasn’t falsified. That’s just amazing. They both falsified data, and when caught, pointed at each other.<p>Gino was fired but Ariely kept his job then sued Data Colada.<p>She had claimed it was misogyny and discrimination. She may be right in respect to how she was treated compared to Ariely.<p>Was it still worth cheating for both of them? Money-wise, absolutely! Add up all their book fees and speaking fees that they’ll never have to repay back. They can already retire comfortably.<p>EDIT: Gino wasn&#x27;t fired. She was placed on administrative leave. Revocation of tenure was only implied as a possibility.
评论 #37718001 未加载
评论 #37716229 未加载
评论 #37718367 未加载
评论 #37717132 未加载
评论 #37716653 未加载
评论 #37720068 未加载
评论 #37716003 未加载
评论 #37718146 未加载
评论 #37718269 未加载
DonsDiscountGas超过 1 年前
Another take: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.experimental-history.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;im-so-sorry-for-psychologys-loss" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.experimental-history.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;im-so-sorry-for-psych...</a><p>&gt; So what was the scientific fallout of Stapel&#x27;s demise? What theories had to be rewritten? What revisions did we have to make to our understanding of the human mind?<p>&gt; Basically none, as far as I can tell. The universities where Stapel worked released a long report cataloging all of his misdeeds, and the part called “Impact of the fraud” (section 3.7 if you&#x27;re following along at home) details all sorts of reputational harm: students, schools, co-authors, journals, and even psychology itself all suffer from their association with Stapel. It says nothing about the scientific impact—the theories that have to be rolled back, the models that have to be retired, the subfields that are at square one again. And looking over Stapel&#x27;s retracted work, it&#x27;s because there are no theories, models, or subfields that changed much at all. The 10,000+ citations of his work now point nowhere, and it makes no difference.<p>&gt; As a young psychologist, this chills me to my bones. Apparently is possible to reach the stratosphere of scientific achievement, to publish over and over again in “high impact” journals, to rack up tens of thousands of citations, and for none of it to matter. Every marker of success, the things that are supposed to tell you that you&#x27;re on the right track, that you&#x27;re making a real contribution to science—they might mean nothing at all. So, uh, what exactly am I doing?<p>It&#x27;s kinda like finding out an athlete has been cheating. You probably want to throw away any of their inspirational talk, but it doesn&#x27;t affect the rest of your life because it was just a sport to begin with. Somebody was gonna win, somebody was gonna lose, and it matters a whole lot to the players (and fans) but that&#x27;s it. Except worthwhile science is supposed to actually matter whether it&#x27;s true or false.
评论 #37716467 未加载
评论 #37716134 未加载
评论 #37716625 未加载
评论 #37719477 未加载
评论 #37717500 未加载
评论 #37717687 未加载
评论 #37715975 未加载
OldGuyInTheClub超过 1 年前
There&#x27;s a lot of celebrity chasing going on even in the physical sciences. I see it most in theoretical physics where papers can be published at an astonishing clip. Experiments however take much longer and if the numbers don&#x27;t line up, they don&#x27;t get published. In the rare cases that they do, the penalties are severe. But, when a theory or family of theories gets wiped out by a measurement, there&#x27;s not the same blowback.<p>I am also concerned by the willingness of so many physicists to cozy up to the oligarchs.
评论 #37720263 未加载
评论 #37721293 未加载
green-eclipse超过 1 年前
People have been pointing out these frauds for a while now.<p>Aug 2021: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;article-9914493&#x2F;Landmark-study-honesty-cheating-relied-faked-data.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;article-9914493&#x2F;Landmark-st...</a><p>July 2023: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;27&#x2F;1190568472&#x2F;dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;27&#x2F;1190568472&#x2F;dan-ariely-frances...</a><p>etc etc
paulpauper超过 1 年前
Similar to Gladwell, the lines between research, journalism and storytelling are becoming increasingly blurred. Dan Ariely&#x27;s backstory of being a teenage burn victim somehow factors into his research as adding credibility. Ideally, the anecdotal should be separate from the actual data, but research which may be dubious is given the benefit of the doubt because it confirms what we want to believe through storytelling, which confirms or revivifies a preexisting experience or bias.
zestyping超过 1 年前
This quote from a statement to NPR by The Hartford (the insurance company that provided Ariely with the car odometer data), made my jaw drop.<p>&gt; The published study data includes two different fonts. All data in Calibri font can be tied to our data while all data of Cambria font appears to have been synthesized or fabricated.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;27&#x2F;1190568472&#x2F;dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;27&#x2F;1190568472&#x2F;dan-ariely-frances...</a>
gatinsama超过 1 年前
If you are into this kind of thing (science going wrong), I recommend the book Bad Science. Also, Science Fictions, by Stuart Ritchie, who also now has a great podcast called The Studies show.
dang超过 1 年前
Related. Others?<p><i>Crowdfunding a defense for scientific research</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37393502">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37393502</a> - Sept 2023 (47 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)
jgaa超过 1 年前
The nice thing with science is that if you cherry-pick your scientists, you will always find some who &quot;prove you right&quot; ;)
评论 #37717741 未加载
moffkalast超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s always great to see a study made by real experts on the topic.
评论 #37718942 未加载
huitzitziltzin超过 1 年前
An exception to the general rule: “if a newspaper headline ends in a question mark the answer is no”<p>Here the answer is yes. Dan Ariely is a complete fraud and so is Francesca Gino.<p>There are so many credible accusations of fraud against Ariely that about four of them get treated together very quickly at the end of the article, else the article would be several times longer. If you own his books, throw them away or shelve them with your fiction.<p>Also note that there are serious behavioral economics researchers who do hard work that isn’t remotely like this “nudging” or “priming” BS.
评论 #37716459 未加载
评论 #37717674 未加载
评论 #37717193 未加载
webel0超过 1 年前
There was also a piece in the nyt this morning [0].<p>Seems like someone was rushing for a scoop (what scoop? This is old news.) or someone’s PR firm is getting results.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;30&#x2F;business&#x2F;the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;09&#x2F;30&#x2F;business&#x2F;the-harvard-prof...</a>
评论 #37716041 未加载
评论 #37721971 未加载
评论 #37717699 未加载
neilv超过 1 年前
This piece is very readable, but a tiny bit funny is how loaded the storytelling is, given the subject matter.<p>The storyteller wants the reader to think certain things about characters and events, and facts and impressions are cherry-picked and deployed <i>just so</i>, to support that.<p>I guess seeing the persuasion as that of a storyteller might be understood in this kind of journalism (I don&#x27;t know, especially since the subject matter seems delicate), but I believe that scientific research needs higher standards.
评论 #37719491 未加载
评论 #37717893 未加载
curiousgal超过 1 年前
Day after day I grow more convinced psychology research is a sham.
评论 #37719512 未加载
评论 #37716678 未加载
评论 #37715751 未加载
评论 #37716170 未加载
评论 #37716181 未加载
hcks超过 1 年前
You could also use your common sense when these results were mentioned and realise anyone believing them was intellectually challenged
77pt77超过 1 年前
&gt; Some behavioral economist is going to win the Nobel Prize—what do I have to do to be in contention?<p>Just a reminder that there is no Nobel Prize in Economics.
einpoklum超过 1 年前
&quot;Kahneman and his partner, Amos Tversky, had pioneered the field of “judgment and decision-making,” which revealed the rational-actor model of neoclassical economics to be a convenient fiction. &quot;<p>There was nothing to &quot;reveal&quot;. Neoclassical economics and the mental model of &quot;rational actors&quot; is no more science than phlogiston or alchemical conversion of lead to gold. It&#x27;s worse than those, since it&#x27;s an ideological construct used to buttress the social order.<p>Which is why we should understand how whole branches of economics are strange pursuits within the realms of fantasy devoid from reality; and when someone introduces a shred of it back in, this is hailed as some great achievement.<p>Reminds me of this segment in &quot;Yes Minister&quot;:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=KgUemV4brDU">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=KgUemV4brDU</a>