I pointed some colleagues to this submit, The so-called “lucky golf ball”: The Association for Psychological Science promotes junk science while ignoring the careful, serious work of replication, and so they despatched alongside some feedback:
Correspondent #1:
I believe the strangest factor right here is that the cited paper is simply so outdated. By that I imply, not simply the entire earlier than/after Bem and Stapel factor, however merely that it’s 11 years outdated. To me this says “No person has cited something newer that we may have promoted. That is the very best we’ve”.
I replied: I believe journalists are simply at all times looking out for function materials, and the creator simply occurred to come back throughout this analysis paper.
The actual miracle of this research is that it didn’t make into the holy trinity of Gladwell / Freakonomics / Nudge. The authors of that “fortunate golf ball” paper should really feel so insulted. They weren’t ok for NPR, Ted, and so forth., however Wansink was???
Correspondent #2:
Oh—and moreover the non-replication—doesn’t Tiger Woods nearly at all times put on a pink shirt? Even on days when his luck ain’t so good?
I don’t know—is there any video of when he drove into that tree?
Correspondent #3:
Attention-grabbing. Much more fascinating is a link {that a} commenter in your submit supplied:
This recreation seems wild. And, wanting on the checklist of 130 papers, it doesn’t look so distant from a listing that will be generated by asking psychologists “Identify findings from revealed papers that you just suppose could be unlikely to copy.”
Video intro to the sport.
Correspondent #4:
What I discover upsetting concerning the Ariely recreation video is EVEN should you low cost the truth that the analysis is probably going weak sauce, the construction of the sport sends the precise improper message about variance and anticipated values. “What is going to an individual do if offered with state of affairs X? a, b, c or d?”
It’s like a poker participant considering: “okay, if push all in from the button I’ll win 3.6 large blinds every time.”
The youtube video was actually offputting. encouraging dangerous fascinated with dangerous analysis.
I assume the argument within the different path is that any fascinated with analysis is nice, even dangerous considering. I assume this might be the stance of the Affiliation for Psychological Science when it was selling that silly fortunate golf ball research or taking its strong stance in opposition to “secularism, libertarianism, legal justice reform, and unrestricted sociosexuality, amongst others.” Cheerleading’s at all times okay; criticism is for terrorists.
I pointed some colleagues to this submit, The so-called “lucky golf ball”: The Association for Psychological Science promotes junk science while ignoring the careful, serious work of replication, and so they despatched alongside some feedback:
Correspondent #1:
I believe the strangest factor right here is that the cited paper is simply so outdated. By that I imply, not simply the entire earlier than/after Bem and Stapel factor, however merely that it’s 11 years outdated. To me this says “No person has cited something newer that we may have promoted. That is the very best we’ve”.
I replied: I believe journalists are simply at all times looking out for function materials, and the creator simply occurred to come back throughout this analysis paper.
The actual miracle of this research is that it didn’t make into the holy trinity of Gladwell / Freakonomics / Nudge. The authors of that “fortunate golf ball” paper should really feel so insulted. They weren’t ok for NPR, Ted, and so forth., however Wansink was???
Correspondent #2:
Oh—and moreover the non-replication—doesn’t Tiger Woods nearly at all times put on a pink shirt? Even on days when his luck ain’t so good?
I don’t know—is there any video of when he drove into that tree?
Correspondent #3:
Attention-grabbing. Much more fascinating is a link {that a} commenter in your submit supplied:
This recreation seems wild. And, wanting on the checklist of 130 papers, it doesn’t look so distant from a listing that will be generated by asking psychologists “Identify findings from revealed papers that you just suppose could be unlikely to copy.”
Video intro to the sport.
Correspondent #4:
What I discover upsetting concerning the Ariely recreation video is EVEN should you low cost the truth that the analysis is probably going weak sauce, the construction of the sport sends the precise improper message about variance and anticipated values. “What is going to an individual do if offered with state of affairs X? a, b, c or d?”
It’s like a poker participant considering: “okay, if push all in from the button I’ll win 3.6 large blinds every time.”
The youtube video was actually offputting. encouraging dangerous fascinated with dangerous analysis.
I assume the argument within the different path is that any fascinated with analysis is nice, even dangerous considering. I assume this might be the stance of the Affiliation for Psychological Science when it was selling that silly fortunate golf ball research or taking its strong stance in opposition to “secularism, libertarianism, legal justice reform, and unrestricted sociosexuality, amongst others.” Cheerleading’s at all times okay; criticism is for terrorists.