[109] Data Falsificada (Part 1): "Clusterfake" - Data Colada
This is the introduction to a four-part series of posts detailing evidence of fraud in four academic papers co-authored by Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino. In 2021, we and a team of anonymous researchers examined a number of studies co-aut...
I wonder if anyone will run a retraction?
That would require the sort of honest analysis that would have kept this from happening. Also the collaborators would be fucked.
I will post in Imp's honor.
A woman lied in her study about honesty? Who could have seen this coming? And one so well-credentialed, as well.
"social science" is fake
Social sciences, giving fools "scientific studies" to back up their bad takes for over a hundred years.
The replication crisis started in the social "sciences". Key word being "started" because it has since spread at a rather rapid pace across all of science.
For those not in the know, this means that a LOT of science simply cannot be reproduced with their given methodology, making it at best suspect and at worst outright lies. If an experiment or study cannot be replicated to achieve at the very least similar findings (let alone the same findings), it is by definition not accurate and therefore faulty.
Research and by extension life that relies upon the findings of research will become very difficult when it takes faulty science to be true, and what's worse is that far too many will be too stupid to figure out what the issue is and how to rectify it.
This touches on two frustrating beliefs that I hold about our current society.
The first is whores in lab coats: that researchers have strong motivations to tailor the outcome of their studies due to financial motivations, including personal gain and continued funding, as well as social gain, like prominence in their field and furthering personal beliefs or biases. It may have always been this way, but modern science more obviously spends time back arched, legs spread, begging for funding while promising a good outcome.
The second belief is why the first has become more prominent: it is not why would she lie, but why would she not lie? We are all familiar with the surge in victim culture and the subsidization of bad behavior for social/political/financial gain. My first serious introduction to this kind of malarkey was after reading the infamous Rolling Stone article and hearing about the antics of mattress girl. Both cases seemed a bit off to me and were false in the end, but there were no large retractions or public displays of humility or criminal punishments for those who lied to destroy others, only a loud doubling or tripling down with quietly (if at all) acknowledged multimillion dollar settlements. This attitude has spilled into everything, including science, an attitude that the truth and honesty are not strong enough to bring about the desired outcome, so lies and manipulation must be leveraged to "start a conversation" or "be on the right side of history", regardless of whom or what is crushed and trampled in the process.
TL;DR A fib every day keeps the alt-right fascists at bay, so tell one for the glorious utopian future!
The kind of person who would cheat on an ethics test.
Curious what her study conclusions were - that people were dishonest or honest that they were dishonest/honest for racist reasons? etc;