Interesting response proff

It contradicts womens studies directly. Check some journals or something if youre not familiar

Why do i care? Would you believe me if i told you they were successfully attacking free speech?

juan, I am admittedly inclined to agree (lol gender studies) if you only gave some more/any evidence to back-up claims. It's not a very high bar mind-you.

What contradicts womens studies? Transgender studies?


How?

I don't think he knows how to do that; thus, the avoidance behavior.

My bad. I mistook you for another poster. Here is the post where i outline some of the fraud cases and failures to replicate.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=335

Btw, i did NOT say that the majority are fraudulent. I said:

Womens studies directly contradict science. The studies cited in the video i posted completely demolish what is taught in womens studies

If you didnt know that scientific abominations like transgender proffessors were successfully attacking free speech its a little too late to take the smug tone out of your previous posts but you could still ask me nicely to help you out if you cant figure it out on your own

lol

There is certainly fraudulent nonsense full of bias going on. Double blind placebo is the gold standard for a reason. Image the difference between scientists conducting scientific reasearch with a genuine interest in the truth vs a women or trans conducting studies to become resources for trans and womens studies courses. Its so political and biased its absurd. The most obvious cases of this are the wage gap nonsense that even obama and hilary will parrot. Its completely unscientific garbage. Also sexual assault stats

Trans professors and womens studies are propagating 7th grade level research that is totally false

To be fair, Transgenders can be pretty scary... 4:44



Not sure if you are familiar, but this manifesto can be considered a little scary as well...

Lol. Scary sh*t from the 80s.

I also was disappointed to see the lack of support in this branch. I mean, can you two take the argument about nothing to Student Life, or hand me an article or two? I've never taken a GS class because of its reputation, but Donny is out of his element ITT.

Phew!! Good thing its 2017 and all them folks are gone!!

Edit: replaced original OP with just full transcript of manifesto

Psychology’s Replication Crisis Can’t Be Wished Away:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...d-away/472272/

This dipsh*t didn't even get fired for his fraud:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/...tion-concludes

This one did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

As did this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...d-bad-practice

More bad news for shrinks:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

Psychologists apparently can't do stats very well. Screw up 50% of the time:

http://www.nature.com/news/smart-sof...papers-1.18657

One in eight Psych papers contained a grossly inconsistent p-value that may have affected the statistical conclusion:

http://link.springer.com/article/10....428-015-0664-2

systematic bias in favor of significant results:

http://link.springer.com/article/10....428-015-0664-2

Sounds like you didn't have a father figure who could teach you how not to be a wuss.

A lot of your links are dead for me, but what is the evidence that these problems are limited to psychology? Reproducibility and false positives are related to publishers wanting "new" results and the File Drawer Problem, which are problems across all disciplines. Maybe psychology is worse? I don't know, but it's not clear from what you've posted.

I heard in this type of fake discipline, the profs just male it in.

When? I watched part of your youtoob and I have no idea what argument you're trying to make here.

That's why it's called manipulation.

This is what i said:

i'm sure it's just another case of an internet lolbertarian getting his online diploma from utoobz university

More trouble looming in Psychology.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01...textbooks.html

None of these problems are unique to these fields. It's a symptom of a system that rewards publishing content without any consideration for the value of the work being done coupled with the fact that people in these fields generally have weak quant skills.

The victim in all cases are the students.

But this is what you get when organizations are able to sell goods/services where the benefits are very difficult to quantify, and the groups that're given the ability to grant accreditation are doing a really piss poor job of guiding people into programs that're cost effective (in large part because no one can agree on what the objectives even are).

Correct. But Psychology and other social sciences are doing much worse in this area. About 95% of psych journal articles have matching alternative hypotheses with data, while this number falls to <50% with physical sciences. This doesn't even get into the low N's, the inflated effect sizes, etc.


And the general public who believes the nonsense.

Does the general public care what an unknown PHD has written? When the results of the study start affecting people there're plenty of reasonable academics who'll scrutinize the work.

I disagree. There are a LOT of people who take Intro to Psych. It's required at most universities in the core requirements. The link above shows that many Intro to Psych books are deeply flawed.

For example, there are a lot of widespread beliefs in the general public about priming, yet over half the priming studies in the past 5 years did not replicate.

Even more importantly, much of this nonsense spills over into the clinical fields, where therapists are using techniques that do not replicate under scrutiny.

Most reasonable academics will NOT scrutinize the works. Here is why:

1) Most journals will not publish replication studies. In fact, the replication project started by Hal Pashler has not done very well because the researchers don't get anything out of it (e.g. publications).

2) Many are afraid of offending their colleagues and stay away from it. Some statisticians like Uri Simonsohn don't care, but there are few like him.

3) It's hard to replicate a study and often takes a lot of time and money that researchers don't have. Granting agencies won't fund this. Methods section in journal articles are not detailed enough to do the replication without getting additional info from the authors. The original authors usually won't play along bc they know they're under attack. Raw data gets "lost".