Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yup, that's the point this article makes:

I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psych...

This whole debacle matters a lot socially: careers ruined, reputations in tatters, lawsuits flying. But strangely, it doesn't seem to matter much scientifically. That is, our understanding of psychology remains unchanged ...

That might sound like a dunk on Gino and Ariely, or like a claim about how experimental psychology is wonderfully robust. It is, unfortunately, neither. It is actually a terrifying fact that you can reveal whole swaths of a scientific field to be fraudulent and it doesn't make a difference.

---

Also interestingly the author apparently studied under Dan Gilbert at Harvard, so he's an "insider". I remember >10 years ago seeing the "happiness science" from Gilbert go around:

https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-aft...

Although I actually think the core insight is a good one, and a memorable one -- people are unable to predict what makes them happy. They think they will be happy if they buy a new car to show off, but if you ask them afterward, that didn't really happen.

There was another one of these "TED memes" that turned out to be widely mocked / unreplicable:

When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolut...



Holy crap that article was a good read




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: