Social psychology fraud

I am shocked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5842893/Famed-Stanford-prison-experiment-shows-naturally-abuse-power-based-LIES.html

I am looking at his book “The Lucifer Effect”.

Literally looking at it.

It is also full of shit.

He wanted to be famous because he was jealous of Milgram, ask around.

Charge him with fraud.

Make an example.

Who wants to tell them personality tests are a way to exclude races and classes you don’t like from job applications, since you aren’t allowed to use IQ?

Narrative: criminals are innocent little babies.

comment
“I have three psychology degrees (two postgraduate). One of the reasons I left academia was because I felt frustrated with the way research was conducted and how results were interpreted. Researchers often get the results they want to see and only ‘successful’ studies make it into journals. There are many highly intelligent people working in this field (or fields- psychology is diverse) and these are good people. What I discovered was often a lack of common sense in the academic bubble. In fact, ‘common sense’ was sneered at.”

Ah, confirmation bias!
Experimenter bias!

The new priests. No questioning!

Next, Kinsey.

A lot of faking about child sexuality and consent there.

In the #MeToo age, come on!

Smash all the sacred cow jars.

Obviously, embracing the animal nature of your sexuality and exaggerating it is doubleplusgood. Be less human! It’ll end well!

I’ve never seen a single life outcome study on that.

Not one.

Yet we all accept it as “fact”…

despite how basic observation demonstrates sexuality is corrosive to 1st world society.

Reproduction Crisis only in social psychology?

It sure looks that way. Many of the failures come from that specific area.

They denied away ANY replicable failure for years.

This isn’t something I’m making up but it hasn’t hit mainstream because suppression. It’s commonly known within academic circles.

Here’s an entire paper on it. I don’t think they covered their arses quite enough?

https://www.rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.66/

Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable.

forced to pretend you care

The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct

mistakes were made

in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature,

lots of lies without liars

leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology. 

so-called problem in a science funded by the taxpayer

The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology.

where most failure is, as if by magic!

We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field.

lotta people need to get fired

We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories.

Nurture =/= making shit up.

Sociologist’s fallacy also comes into play.

Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.

Let us have some creative license, like theoretical physics!

Without postmodernism, we’d have to get a real job!

Another paper because someone, somewhere will claim I’m imagining things.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621/full

A dude who feels threatened intellectually.

The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”

what is a red hand, really?

You were caught red-handed. “Oh, it isn’t crimson, it’s scarlet!”

does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified?

Really.

What is a lie? That’s where you are going with this?

And how should “failed” replications

bitchy quote marks, I know thee well

affect

your money?

our belief in the validity of the original research?

trans. We said it so fuck you. It’s true.

In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion.

If we talk long enough, we can talk our way out of this!

Lying in a professional role is up for debate!

Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.

trans. You should trust us anyway, fuck your data. Something something Bayesian.

Hint: that isn’t how Bayesian models work?

Bayesian models are predictive.

The whole point is you predict nothing real. Re-train for climate science.

https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-016-0135-2

Why did this take so long to come out? Well, they were hiding it.

Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings.

No, it’s about people who clearly fudged their data then published it. The replication proved this after the fact.

If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of ‘chronic’ crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades.

no need to take our monies away, taxpayers!

While the debate in psychology is not new,

public admission is

the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing.

Deliberate and to be expected.

Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives.

Blame the skeptics!

Doubt is a sin!

The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.

We fucked up, majorly. We’re hoping to pretend this is ongoing, normal and nothing to react to.

Before

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/psychology-replications/home

No Evidence for a Replicability Crisis in Psychological Science

https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-s-reproducibility-problem-is-exaggerated-say-psychologists-1.19498

Ten Famous Psychology Findings That It’s Been Difficult To Replicate

 

 

Paper: The reproducible social science of stereotype accuracy

Educate yourselves.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/why%20study%20stereo%20acc.pdf

Seldom mentioned, oft through gritted teeth.

See Lee Jussim’s papers for details.

Empirical Fact: Stereotypes are true.

Check the shade thrown in the conclusion though. You can taste the sarcasm.

sorry but stereotypes are true

Reading Material: The Mating Mind

Read here: https://ontherapyaspse.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/geoffrey-miller-the-mating-mind.pdf

I highly recommend this. You won’t see dating the same way again. One of those topics everyone has a passing interest in.

Selection pressures on mate preference in humans. How do we seek novelty?

Wit, intelligence, kindness, and fitness – the sort of things most people wonder about when applying evolution to humans.

vivien leigh wait what surprise beautiful

 “If these quirks influenced the sexual choices that shaped the mind’s evolution, then the mind could be viewed as an entertainment system that appeals to the psychological preferences of other minds. Just as some books become best-sellers for their contents rather than their covers, our ancestors attracted mates by displaying interesting minds, not just shapely bodies and resonant voices. Our minds may have evolved as sexual ornaments, but ornamentation is not limited to a superficial appeal to the senses. As far as sexual selection is concerned, creativity can be ornamental. Consciousness itself may be ornamental.” Chapter 5, Ornamental Genius

Inferior v Superior People

Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

They are anti-evolution, in my opinion. Especially the evolution of humans (a SPECIES, not a ‘race’) and our psyche. They want the power of an adult with none of the responsibilities, an intellectualized infantilisation exercise. ( narcissist r-types: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/where-modern-r-amygdalae-meet-ancient-k-amygdalae/ ) They are calling for a cull, a genocide on a racial level (beige people) but on an intellectual, emotional plane as well. Giftedness genocide, I think of it, much like mass immigration is a form of cultural cuckoldry, they wish to use humanity as the melting pot and petri dish for their ideology, they’re more authoritarian than Hitler. They are naïve enough of biological determinism (they refuse it exists, honestly, ask them) to expect humans are tabula rasa and can be totally rewritten. They don’t want to simply kill people (#killallmen) they wish to do something far worse – strip us of our humanity and individuality. Evolved differences? Let’s scrub those nasty things away with science! and play God. #Frankenstein

Communists fail when they misunderstand human motivation. Reaction formation, idiots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment Behavioural psychology, conditioning, feedback and response loops IN THE BRAIN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy#Narcissists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

One of the most common examples is a woman who is envious of another’s beauty, such as in the fairy tale “Snow White“, in which the Queen is envious of Snow White’s youth and beauty, and seeks to kill the young woman in order to once again be the “fairest of them all”. ~ anti-feminism propaganda before it was a thing

Human value is relative to the competition. In bowing to the Third World from fake white guilt, the Original Sin of Whiteness, they become the slaves to the people outcompeting them for those plum jobs, even in STEM. They are losers whining about the need for a social species to rank by hierarchy because in each category they fail.

As I said in a ROQ article, social justice is anti-social revenge.

“Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful.” ~ Mason Cooley

They have what used to be called vainglory, and it is futile. It attempts to bring down others by falsely boosting the self. Identity politics.

On the other hand, I’m still pissed off with Cappy for this one he did while I was off demurely sipping tea –

Psychology has 3 problems

1. liars are allowed to push their politics i.e. feminist psychology, really. It exists. We acknowledge the problem and are presently pulling out the SJW weeds. http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/5/504.abstract

2. aimless idiots are allowed in and prefer soft course material over brutal reality aka science. (I believe this is the bone of contention).

3. anything claiming to be psychology is considered it. Most of the present material is a liberal art but it’s tarring the real scientists with that brush to say it’s a stupid subject when there are highly scientific branches vital to an aging population (neurology, gerontology) and our technological needs (computational neuroscience, possibly AGI).