Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Aug 28, 2015 12:00 PM GMT


    Interesting article. They've been publishing studies that have not been peer reviewed or have been replicated by other researchers - which is not very scientific.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

    It explains much of the ridiculous results in "studies" they publish.
  • ASHDOD

    Posts: 1057

    Aug 28, 2015 8:09 PM GMT


    I'm not surprised, i remember a guy i used to know that complied his M.A. [MASTERS]In psychology, and he admitted he fabricated the results ,he couldn't get enough people for his study[ the monogamy in gay,male and female couples, something with open marriages ect]and the results he got didn't match what he wanted to write...
    i guess he's not alone
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2015 9:50 PM GMT
    I assume not many people read psych-journals to begin with, but only what is published in the general media, where the writers get to pick and choose which study will support their ideas.

    In general, it's also important to look who paid for said scientific study as studies' results often reflect the payers interests.
    Second-hand smoke, cough, cough, anyone?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2015 10:13 PM GMT
    bhp91126 saidI assume not many people read psych-journals to begin with, but only what is published in the general media, where the writers get to pick and choose which study will support their ideas.

    In general, it's also important to look who paid for said scientific study as studies' results often reflect the payers interests.
    Second-hand smoke, cough, cough, anyone?


    THIS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2015 1:30 AM GMT
    bhp91126 saidI assume not many people read psych-journals to begin with, but only what is published in the general media, where the writers get to pick and choose which study will support their ideas.

    In general, it's also important to look who paid for said scientific study as studies' results often reflect the payers interests.
    Second-hand smoke, cough, cough, anyone?
    Exactly! There are more harmful emissions from most gas-burning cars than a crowd of chain smokers, but all this anti-smoking-anywhere shit is based solely on the smell of it, cause a lot of people don't like it.

    Then again, now that I'm in Cali, I've kinda gotten used to the idea that cops don't care if people drink or smoke weed on the street, but they'll stop you in a heartbeat if they catch you smoking a cigarette. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2015 2:02 AM GMT
    bhp91126 saidI assume not many people read psych-journals to begin with, but only what is published in the general media, where the writers get to pick and choose which study will support their ideas.

    In general, it's also important to look who paid for said scientific study as studies' results often reflect the payers interests.
    Second-hand smoke, cough, cough, anyone?


    Yup. End of thread.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Aug 29, 2015 2:56 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said

    Interesting article. They've been publishing studies that have not been peer reviewed or have been replicated by other researchers - which is not very scientific.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

    It explains much of the ridiculous results in "studies" they publish.


    Social Psychology, Sociology, and Psychology are pseudo-science. Always have been and always will be. Yet there are those who desire to use the result of such "experimentation" to rule your life. Telling such person to fuck off is not such a bad thing.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Aug 29, 2015 6:15 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    bhp91126 saidI assume not many people read psych-journals to begin with, but only what is published in the general media, where the writers get to pick and choose which study will support their ideas.

    In general, it's also important to look who paid for said scientific study as studies' results often reflect the payers interests.
    Second-hand smoke, cough, cough, anyone?
    Exactly! There are more harmful emissions from most gas-burning cars than a crowd of chain smokers, but all this anti-smoking-anywhere shit is based solely on the smell of it, cause a lot of people don't like it.

    Then again, now that I'm in Cali, I've kinda gotten used to the idea that cops don't care if people drink or smoke weed on the street, but they'll stop you in a heartbeat if they catch you smoking a cigarette. icon_lol.gif


    When smoking was still socially acceptable, there were many places where I couldn't go because of my sensitivity to smoke.

    In general, fuel-burning vehicles are driven outside, not inside. On the other hand, smoking is often done inside where it quickly becomes more concentrated. That is the difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2015 7:13 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said

    Interesting article. They've been publishing studies that have not been peer reviewed or have been replicated by other researchers - which is not very scientific.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

    It explains much of the ridiculous results in "studies" they publish.


    Remember this is social psychology studies. It's not a true science. Scientists are always running studies. And they can be verified to a %.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 31, 2015 10:26 PM GMT
    I think the word to describe these subjects is the humanities, not science; and though based on reason, still lacking the experimental rigour of the sciences.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 01, 2015 12:01 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    bobbobbob said

    Interesting article. They've been publishing studies that have not been peer reviewed or have been replicated by other researchers - which is not very scientific.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

    It explains much of the ridiculous results in "studies" they publish.


    Social Psychology, Sociology, and Psychology are pseudo-science. Always have been and always will be. Yet there are those who desire to use the result of such "experimentation" to rule your life. Telling such person to fuck off is not such a bad thing.


    You're right, it's not such a bad thing at all to tell such a person to go fuck off. LOL.
    In fact it felt pretty good the two times I was compelled to do just that.