Popular papers to be scrutinized?
post by alyosha_the_pot · 2020-04-14T19:50:06.889Z · LW · GW · No commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 6 Daniel Kokotajlo 6 Daniel Kokotajlo 2 philh 2 romeostevensit 2 lifelonglearner None No comments
Inspired by Alexey Guzey's criticism of Matthew Walker's Why We Sleep, as well as the SSC criticisms of The Seven Principles of Marriage I was wondering if anyone had some good ideas for papers/ books that should be looked at more closely.
They should be popular/influential pieces of science, but either of questionable statistical rigor, or should be much more closely analyzed. My first thought is to go through the most cited papers in 'softer' fields (e.g. social psychology, nutrition), though I'm also curious about the literature that is not necessarily cited a lot, but often talked about by the public. Anyone have ideas?
Answers
If you want to go for popular & controversial books, I'd suggest doing Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and Murray's The Bell Curve simultaneously. Dueling bestsellers on the most controversial topic possible. However, I'd recommend keeping it far away from LessWrong if you do.
↑ comment by alyosha_the_pot · 2020-04-15T21:10:59.877Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Appreciate the suggestion, but would be afraid of finding myself in some hot water over those two. I might take a closer look in my own time.
↑ comment by bfinn · 2020-04-15T13:10:12.765Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They're quite old books now though; somewhat out of date I expect (though most of the main points are probably still relevant).
Replies from: daniel-kokotajlo, panashe-fundira↑ comment by Daniel Kokotajlo (daniel-kokotajlo) · 2020-04-15T13:32:22.260Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree it would be better to have newer books, but these two seem influential enough still as to be worth tackling -- and the fact that science has progressed since then can even be an advantage, because it makes it easier to compare their claims to reality, since we have more data than them. I haven't actually read either of them, but I've heard a lot about each.
Replies from: bfinn↑ comment by bfinn · 2020-04-15T19:53:51.599Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I read The Bell Curve (many years ago) and it's certainly an interesting book.
I suppose before embarking on reading/comparing two books like this (a lot of work!) it would be good to be clear on just what the purpose of the exercise is. It's not quite clear to me, but anyway.
↑ comment by Panashe Fundira (panashe-fundira) · 2020-04-16T06:02:25.613Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Murray has a new book out, Human Diversity, so that may be a good place to start.
I'd love to see someone look at Brian Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. I and several other people I know have made parenting decisions on the basis of this book, and will probably continue to do so unless it is debunked, so I'd love to see it vetted carefully.
↑ comment by alyosha_the_pot · 2020-04-15T21:17:17.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would be quite surprised if I could find significant flaws in Caplan's book. This book sounds like a good read anyways, so I may end up taking a look regardless.
Malcolm Gladwell's pop science comes to mind, though I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done to your satisfaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell
Sapiens
Thinking Fast and Slow
How Emotions are Made
There was a recent paper which was popular on Reddit and news sites, which I thought was horrible. It was about how men could supposedly smell female arousal.
I think there's a lot about this paper that's terrible, and if you want something easy to rip into, this is a nice start.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2020-04-15T09:20:58.205Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's a terrible paper but I doubt many people will be taken actions based on that paper which makes it harmless and in the same class as the examples of the OP.
↑ comment by alyosha_the_pot · 2020-04-15T21:13:21.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the link! I might actually start with this.
No comments
Comments sorted by top scores.