Slashdot Mirror
Does Google Actually Make Us Dumber? (buzzfeednews.com)
Another spate of high-profile and provocative psychology studies have failed to replicate, dealing blows to the theories that fiction makes readers empathetic, for example, or that the internet makes us dumber. From a report: At a time when psychology researchers are increasingly concerned about the rigor of their field, five laboratories set out to repeat 21 influential studies. Experiments in just 13 of those papers -- or 62% -- held up, according to an analysis published Monday. The eight papers that did not fully replicate -- seven in Science, one in Nature -- have been cited hundreds of times in scientific literature and many were widely covered by the media.
Failing to replicate isn't definitive proof that a finding is false, particularly in cases where other studies support the same general idea. And some scientists told BuzzFeed News they do not agree with how the replications were done. Still, the new findings are part of an overwhelming, and troubling, trend. The so-called reproducibility crisis has hit research in many fields of science, from artificial intelligence to cancer. Shoddy psychology research has received the most attention, with a 2015 report replicating just 36% of 97 studies. It makes sense that scientists want to publish data that is surprising or counterintuitive. "That's not a bad thing in science, because that's how science breaks boundaries," said Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist and executive director of the Center for Open Science, which led the replication project. But too few scientists, he said, recognize the inherent uncertainty of their splashy results. "It's okay if some of those turn out to be wrong," he said.
Failing to replicate isn't definitive proof that a finding is false, particularly in cases where other studies support the same general idea. And some scientists told BuzzFeed News they do not agree with how the replications were done. Still, the new findings are part of an overwhelming, and troubling, trend. The so-called reproducibility crisis has hit research in many fields of science, from artificial intelligence to cancer. Shoddy psychology research has received the most attention, with a 2015 report replicating just 36% of 97 studies. It makes sense that scientists want to publish data that is surprising or counterintuitive. "That's not a bad thing in science, because that's how science breaks boundaries," said Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist and executive director of the Center for Open Science, which led the replication project. But too few scientists, he said, recognize the inherent uncertainty of their splashy results. "It's okay if some of those turn out to be wrong," he said.
The answer is yes.
I have no idea. Let me use Google to find the answer.
#DeleteFacebook
So yes. It's best new feature is ignoring one random keyword from your search and coming up with uselessly unrelated results.
This is going to be hard to suggest, but these results are actually good news. I used to be in the field of psychology research, so I know all the dirt on how these studies work and the techniques researchers have to do to get published. The fact that over 60% of the findings replicated is very surprising, for a lot of reasons.
1. Top journals publish flashy research. Rather than doing technical research on the mechanisms of empathy, a study showing "fiction reading increases empathy" is more likely to be published in Science, and for a grad student, get you a grant/job/life. Building up more incremental research with stronger theoretical foundations is a lot harder to get published.
2. There's a lot of competition. People want grants/jobs/life and so they have to publish. But anyone can steal your ideas. One of my greatest ideas was stolen as a grad student, which is why I pretty much left the field. It's easy for someone with a bigger lab to do the same study, find similar results, and then publish it. So you have to get your ideas out quickly and you really can't share many of the flashy ones, because this could happen. So this creates a perverse incentive not to replicate the most flashy findings, because they are the ones that give you all the glory.
3. People make it very hard to replicate their research, because once someone gets a program of research, that is their gravy train. If I have a great finding that gets me a great paper and a top-level job, I need to keep up that research to get tenure. All those replication studies are necessary for my job, so again there's an incentive not to replicate other labs' research.
4. The sample sizes are way too low for the type of research being done, which is why false positives are very likely. fMRI research uses sample sizes that are 20-40. My dissertation used 30 participants, because it was all I could afford. To make great generalizable conclusions, I'd probably need 100 or more. So should I stop doing research? No, I should publish it and others should replicate it, or not. By replicating it in slightly different conditions, it increases the external validity of the findings.
So long story short, 60% replication is a good number, and should be how science goes. It's not the researchers' fault or the fault of psychology as a science, since studying complex systems is very hard. It's just the fault of a broken system that equates a published paper with truth, rather than one piece of evidence.
This is why no one takes the social scientists seriously.
Maybe you don't but we base most of our regulatory policies on the social sciences so it's pretty safe to say they get taken quite seriously. And they should be because you want those topics studied in a scientific manner.
It is doubly why we shouldn't waste government research money and subsidized student loans on trite BS like this.
If you want to claim the money isn't being spent wisely or that there isn't enough scientific rigor in the research then I might not agree but at least it's a rational position to take that you might be able to defend. Saying we shouldn't have student loans for people studying economics or education or law or geography or anthropology is essentially saying we don't need those professions and shouldn't bother conducting research in them which is blatantly absurd.
Most of the crap peddled through the liberal arts isn't credible, reproducible, and is nothing more than make work for people who couldn't hack it elsewhere.
Mathematics and natural sciences are considered "liberal arts" and there is quite a lot of crap there too. See string theory for an example of a physics model that has had lots of money dumped in with a lot of useless, wrong and dead end results to show for it. There is nothing about the social sciences that is incompatible with conducting quality scientific inquiry. It's not clear to me why you seem to have such distaste for social sciences other than some vague dislike for subjects which are inherently messy and not easily reducible to nice neat formulas.