Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday August 30 2015, @04:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the lies-damn-lies-and-statistics dept.

Science is a messy, error fraught business, which is why reproducibility is so essential. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be one of psychology's strong suits, according to a massive analysis published yesterday in Science.

A years-long effort to reproduce more than 100 psychology studies across three leading journals paints a pretty dismal picture. When re-tested by independent research psychologists, the conclusions of more than 60 studies on personality, relationships, learning, and memory, turned out to be far less whelming. Strongly significant findings often became weaker, while weakly significant findings became non-existent.

http://gizmodo.com/a-lot-of-published-psychology-results-are-bullshit-1727228060

[Source]: The New York Times


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @08:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @08:37AM (#229758)

    Poor child - you should read the post again. If 80% of shrink talk is bullshit, that leaves 20% which is something other than bullshit. No recursive loop here.

    Lol, I saw it. And yet these psychologists found substantially less than 80% was bullshit. So in the loop of cognitive dissonance you remain.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @01:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @01:10PM (#231711)

    They should check out the social 'sciences' specifically.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @09:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @09:30PM (#232428)

    These psychologists showed no such thing. This was about reproducibility. Even if a study can be reproduced, that doesn't mean it is understand why researchers are getting the result that they are. So it is still possible that their theories about why they are getting those results are nonsense.