The Scent of Bad Psychology

post by Jacobian · 2018-09-10T18:42:21.682Z · score: 44 (19 votes) · LW · GW · 6 comments

This is a link post for

Inspired by the psychology replication quiz [LW · GW], I've come up with four rules to tell bullshit studies in psychology from real ones:

1. The rule of antisignificance

2. The rule of Taleb's grandma

3. The rule of multiplicity

4. The rule of silicone boobs

And finally, a reason why this could mean that there's a brighter future for good psychology research.


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Dr_Manhattan · 2018-09-13T15:08:58.556Z · score: 10 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Why not post the full article, especially since this is your own blog?

comment by Jacobian · 2018-09-13T17:53:03.847Z · score: 5 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I usually cross-post the entire article if:

1. It's related to rationality and the sort of thing I would post to LW if I didn't have Putanumonit.

2. It doesn't have a lot of images and tables I'll have to reload and reformat.

3. I'm not too lazy.

This time, the fault was mostly with #3.

comment by gjm · 2018-09-11T16:16:04.654Z · score: 8 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Pedantic correction: silicone, not silicon. Perhaps silicon boobs would be interesting to a hypothetical (Too-)Friendly AI, but most humans would not find them appealing.

[EDITED to fix a typo.]

comment by Jacobian · 2018-09-11T17:20:18.651Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I never even noticed that those are two different things! This was not a typo, it was a glaring hole in my education. Thank you for filling it up.

Oh, and pedantic correction: you misspelled *silicone* with an extra *l*.

comment by gjm · 2018-09-13T01:22:39.366Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Mistyped rather than misspelled (or, depending on how you prefer to define those things, misspelled by mistyping). Anyway, I'll fix it; thanks.

comment by Paperclip Minimizer · 2018-09-19T12:26:39.706Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

don’t trust studies that would be covered in the Weird News column of the newspaper

-- Ozy