/sci/ - Science & Math

What baffles me is that anyone would take such a "research" seriously. Even the hypothesis it sets out to test are utter nonsense from the get go. How to you even get funding for something like this?

>>15570769
Be a chosen one at (((harvard)))

>>15570769
Jewish connections

This has to be satire.

>>15570769
Make every word start end with 'uh'?

lel Dan "what do you mean, COUHES forms?" Ariely

>>15571234
welcome to clown world

Academic researchers need to be lined up and shot.
They are all leeches.

>>15570719
the cost of science hasn't gone down considerably since its invention. it's no wonder only big corporations and governments can buy science these days.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/OjbcVB0tmVXg/

>>15570719
Why would Dan Ariely do this?

>>15570719
The talk page for her is quite funny and a good example of wikipedia bias.

>>15571997
He is also jewish

>>15572381
wow, really? jewish nepotism and harvard? how shocking and unexpected

>>15570719
Are there any academic studies on the dishonesty of Harvard professors?

>>15572144
is she jewish? I have not been briefed on her early life

>>15573952
She's Italian.

>>15573952
I didn't click a single link, but
>francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty.html
Most likely not. OP is just obsessed. Wait a few minutes, I bet he'll tell us shes trans soon.

>>15573987
So OP lied to me?
Why must OP be a faggot?

>>15573994
I looked her up on google and a cursory search revealed no honorary degrees from hebrew university, no excessive collaboration with israeli researchers, no mentions of her time in a kibbutz

>>15573996
Dan Ariely is Jewish.

is that a nose growing out of her face or a pair of solid rocket boosters?

>>15575032
Grizzly bears could hibernate in those caves

>>15570719
Par for the course during the replication crisis era

>>15577401
I'm so glad I'm studying this shit. I'm actually doing a PhD related to the replication crisis.

Most of the scholar studying the topic are based and redpilled, at least behind closed doors. However, Cailin O'conner who is a big up-and-coming name in the field is a woke leftist who probably has ties to glowies or wall street or something, since she always gets a lot of press and her takes are always super retarded.

>>15578210
>always super retarded.
Any example you care to pillory?

>>15578210
Do you think people are trying to derail studies on the cause of the replication crisis by joining the field and intentionally diverting attention to the wrong causes?

>>15578217
Yes, pic related. Co-authored by the young Cailin O'connor (who landed a job at UC Irvine right out of her PhD program, despite not yet having a name or any significant publications in the field) and Cog Sci superstar Alvin Goldman. It has literally all the hallmarks of a woke pro-censorship shitlib. You'll find the same kind of political and social conclusions across most of her work. She is
>bitching about muh conspiracy theories
>bitching about muh misinformation
>bitching about muh Russia
>bitching about how tech platforms need to do MORE
>unironically citing a BuzzFeed reporter in an academic article, without expressing any qualifications or reservations about the source

And just to be clear, a lot of her work is interesting and I don't necessarily question her ability or intellect, but I do question whether she is an honest and unbiased source. Citing a BuzzFeed article, for example, is highly questionable and something I've literally never seen in an academic source, at least in this manner. When people cite popular sources its generally only to illustrate popular opinion or where the social Zeitgeist is currently situated. She is literally citing BuzzFeed as a source.

>>15578476
Yes, absolutely. Also, a lot of researchers in this field end up advising the federal government, think tanks, and tech companies on these sorts of issues. For instance, I just finished my MS and one of the profs. at my old university provided some sort of report to the government on disinformation on Twitter. Obviously, as soon as you have the government or think tanks or corporations asking for your thoughts on an issue like this, you have a huge incentive as a researcher to tell them what they want to hear.

A good specific example of this is with the social media disinformation shit. They constantly blame the public and social media users, while completely downplaying the effects that algorithms have had. Social media companies have an incentive to algorithmically promote content that is controversial, and hence polarizing, since it gets them more clicks and engagement. There is pretty good evidence pointing this fact, but that research doesn't get very much attention. The same people complaining about misinformation want to give tech platforms even more unrestricted power to manipulate speech and public discourse without public oversight or accountability. There is no reason to think these companies actually care about muh disinformation or muh extremism, and I think we have every reason to expect that it will only get worse. The internet was basically a free-for-all until ca. 2014-2015 when a lot of the censorship picked up, and it was at the very same time that woke leftists started censoring every corner of the internet that we witnessed an explosion in "disinformation" and political polarization.

>>15578476
>>15578544

Also, there is a ton of research pointing to the "wisdom of crowds" and other related phenomenon. For instance, communities of agents who are too sensitive to the truth, in the sense that they are very willing to update their beliefs in light of new evidence can actually under-perform communities that are slightly more reserved in this respect. This is highly context sensitive, and dependent on both the reliability of
the available data and the topology or structure of the social network in question (this is usually either a community of researchers or a collection of users on a social media site, depending on whether you're looking at scientific research or social media disinfo.) The wisdom of crowds refers to the fact that communities of agents with heterogeneous beliefs tend to outperform more intellectually homogeneous communities. Pic related is another good example. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these are not just artifacts of modeling or consequences of cherry picked data or models. We see structurally analogous phenomenon in completely unrelated domains like computer networks, road networks, ecosystems, etc. (e.g. Braess Paradox in road networks which is analogous to the Zollman Effect). Pretty much anywhere where you have networks of discrete interacting parts, and there is both mathematical and empirical evidence suggesting as much. In fact, even physical systems like networks of springs can be shown to exhibit similar failures of monotonicity that are often very surprising.

Instead of holding the mainstream media or tech companies accountable, people just want to completely ignore the matter. In fact, they actually want these companies to have even more unrestricted authority over public discourse, and they are willing to cherry pick research and data to support this cause, while ignoring all the research that exposes the role of tech companies and the media in promoting disinformation and polarization.

>>15578533
>(((Goldman)))

>>15578544
>The internet was basically a free-for-all until ca. 2014-2015 when a lot of the censorship picked up
repeal of the smith-mundt act in 2012

nice effortposting btw, good stuff

>>15570719
she cute tho

>>15570719
Why even study this shit?

>>15580693
>she
thats howard stern

>>15570719
>Two different people independently faked data for two different studies in a paper about dishonesty.
and those people chose to focus on that topic because they are dishonest people who spend their lives paranoidly projecting their own repulsive personalities on everyone around them.
"thou shalt not lie" is not a commandment for no reason, its good advice, you avoid the paranoid pitfall if you lead your life honestly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpAANsoG8I

>>15570719
Uh, I thought it was always understood that academia is a game. Why is this surprising?