It is, at least, fairly well accepted as a thing. Name a "fact" that has been accepted as a learning, dive into it, find that it hasn't held up. :(
Some are purely on the popular science side of failure. The 10k of practice was basically thrown out, but the original research still seems good. They never claimed "if you do 10k of work, you will be good."
The "marshmallow test," though, seems completely tossed? Maybe there was something there?
Anchoring and other items? Not sure how well those have survived. :(
- Stanford Prison Experiment; Not an experiment, abuse was scripted, experimenter constantly intervened, reactions of participants were faked, and there was not even a scientific hypothesis they were testing. Definitely read the paper[0] debunking it.
- Milgram Experiment: (the one where people were ordered to shock actors) No good evidence for it. Researchers did not follow script, implausible levels of agreement between different experiments. Killer line is, “only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter.”
- Robber's Cave: (the one where two groups of kids immediately formed tribal hatred between one another) The conflict was orchestrated by experimenters and the experiment was actually repeated because the first time the kids absolutely refused to turn on one another. More information at [1].
- At best, weak evidence for implicit bias testing and stereotype threat.
- Weak evidence of "facial feedback" (smiling causes a good mood and frowning causes a bad mood)
- Good evidence against "ego depletion" (the idea that willpower is limited in a muscle-like fashion)
- Mixed evidence for Dunning-Kruger effect
- Questionable evidence for "hungry judge" effect (the idea that judicial sentences are massively more merciful in the morning and after a lunch recess due to "ego depletion" - this is also thoroughly debunked here [2])
- The 10,000 hours of practice leading to expertise idea has been disowned by its proponents
- No good evidence that tailoring teaching to students’ preferred learning styles has any effect on objective measures of attainment.
- No good evidence that brains contain one mind per hemisphere. i.e. the left-brain, right-brain split that people talk about, especially after the link between the hemispheres is severed.
- No good evidence for left/right hemisphere dominance correlating with personality differences.
- Most people talking about Dunning-Kruger have no idea what it actually means. The actual purported bias is much weaker than people claim - basically, that everyone either overestimates their ability, but that estimation is still positively correlated with actual ability, or estimated ability has basically no correlation with actual ability and everyone is just guessing.
- Increasing your wealth does in fact make you happier at a predictable rate. There is no "plateau" of wealth or income - what appears to be a plateau is misleading displays of data. In effect, increasing income by a proportional rate will increase reported happiness by a fixed rate. For example, say you make $10, and your happiness is 50. Then, your income increases to $20 and your happiness increases to 60. Then, doubling your happiness is necessary to increase your happiness by 10. It's a logarithmic function; plotted on a standard axis, it looks like a plateau, but plotted on a logarithmic scale and it's a constantly increasing line.
- Hedonic Adaptation (aka the hedonic treadmill) is a myth. Bad life events (divorce, disability, death of a loved one) all have negative long-term effects on happiness. Vice versa for positive events.
taeric|2 years ago
Some are purely on the popular science side of failure. The 10k of practice was basically thrown out, but the original research still seems good. They never claimed "if you do 10k of work, you will be good."
The "marshmallow test," though, seems completely tossed? Maybe there was something there?
Anchoring and other items? Not sure how well those have survived. :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis looks to be a good article, though I haven't finished reading it.
scythe|2 years ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0886-x
PaulKeeble|2 years ago
endominus|2 years ago
- Stanford Prison Experiment; Not an experiment, abuse was scripted, experimenter constantly intervened, reactions of participants were faked, and there was not even a scientific hypothesis they were testing. Definitely read the paper[0] debunking it.
- Milgram Experiment: (the one where people were ordered to shock actors) No good evidence for it. Researchers did not follow script, implausible levels of agreement between different experiments. Killer line is, “only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter.”
- Robber's Cave: (the one where two groups of kids immediately formed tribal hatred between one another) The conflict was orchestrated by experimenters and the experiment was actually repeated because the first time the kids absolutely refused to turn on one another. More information at [1].
- At best, weak evidence for implicit bias testing and stereotype threat.
- Weak evidence of "facial feedback" (smiling causes a good mood and frowning causes a bad mood)
- Good evidence against "ego depletion" (the idea that willpower is limited in a muscle-like fashion)
- Mixed evidence for Dunning-Kruger effect
- Questionable evidence for "hungry judge" effect (the idea that judicial sentences are massively more merciful in the morning and after a lunch recess due to "ego depletion" - this is also thoroughly debunked here [2])
- The 10,000 hours of practice leading to expertise idea has been disowned by its proponents
- No good evidence that tailoring teaching to students’ preferred learning styles has any effect on objective measures of attainment.
- No good evidence that brains contain one mind per hemisphere. i.e. the left-brain, right-brain split that people talk about, especially after the link between the hemispheres is severed.
- No good evidence for left/right hemisphere dominance correlating with personality differences.
Per https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger/:
- Most people talking about Dunning-Kruger have no idea what it actually means. The actual purported bias is much weaker than people claim - basically, that everyone either overestimates their ability, but that estimation is still positively correlated with actual ability, or estimated ability has basically no correlation with actual ability and everyone is just guessing.
- Increasing your wealth does in fact make you happier at a predictable rate. There is no "plateau" of wealth or income - what appears to be a plateau is misleading displays of data. In effect, increasing income by a proportional rate will increase reported happiness by a fixed rate. For example, say you make $10, and your happiness is 50. Then, your income increases to $20 and your happiness increases to 60. Then, doubling your happiness is necessary to increase your happiness by 10. It's a logarithmic function; plotted on a standard axis, it looks like a plateau, but plotted on a logarithmic scale and it's a constantly increasing line.
- Hedonic Adaptation (aka the hedonic treadmill) is a myth. Bad life events (divorce, disability, death of a loved one) all have negative long-term effects on happiness. Vice versa for positive events.
[0]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2019-letexier.pdf
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-...
[2]: http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-hungry-j...
AzzieElbab|2 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair