Hacker News Reader

> I also can believe that she faces hostile criticism that isn't equally distributed among all the other researchers who used weak, but previously acceptable standards.

I agree that this is true, but at a certain point it seems like a justified reaction to unequal importance.

Other Gelman targets like the "himmicanes" paper generated a bit of media attention without any real consequence. Power poses, meanwhile, have become a major pop-science hit. They're still being widely read and promoted, even by tech conferences and news orgs like the BBC. And Cuddy in particular has chosen an aggressive non-scientific promotion campaign while her co-authors have made more honest attempts to take on the replication question - if Carvey was getting the same amount of flak I'd be more concerned that something unfair was happening.

If power poses don't work, it seems like a much worse indictment of academic social psych than most other failures to replicate - the results were widely touted and are still being raised to public acceptance even as they fall apart. The challenges to stereotype threat, priming, and the IAT are even scarier - those results have become well-established and even enshrined in law.

Throughout the replication crisis, my greatest frustration has been the inconsistent narrative coming from researchers. They're simultaneously demanding formal academic critiques instead of blogs, ignoring those critiques when they do exist, and then replying with the same sort of informal aggression they decried in the first place.

I think you're exactly right that Gelman's aggressive approach is motivated by the field's unwillingness to acknowledge anything milder. And seeing responses like Fiske, Cuddy, and Wansink have largely convinced me that there's a major double-standard at work between the level of seriousness applied when attacking critics and the level applied when presenting results as academic truth.

> the results were widely touted and are still being raised to public acceptance even as they fall apart. The challenges to stereotype threat, priming, and the IAT are even scarier

They're in the same boat. It is maddening how much stereotype threat gets brought up to defend certain ideas, or how it has worked its way into corporate diversity policy, and it appears to be built on a foundation of sand [1]. The worst part is, if you question it publicly, you stand a change of being treated like James Damore.

[1] - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/is...

The article directly contradicts a lot of what you've written and addresses all your points.

It such a shame for you to start viciously attacking Cuddy again for positions she clearly doesn't hold, when this article is directly about your misconceptions.

I doubt its a double standard. This sounds like more of the usual, flame wars on forums and responses from blogs upend normal human behavior. Even in the article, one of the people who attacked Cuddy realize that they were the people who had told Cuddy to respond the way she did. He himself comments that he forgot about it and then wrote his article against her. he also adds "oh, that email exchange (before writing the article) I had was too polite." But he still respects her as a top notch psychologist.

Matter of fact I'd guess its comments like yours which are fueling the underlying issue. The usual issues with communicating emotion on the internet.

There should not be schisms on science, yet there are - camps on facts. This is a problem with far worse implications than replicability.

Stakes matter. A million dollar poker game might be structurally identical to a game played for fun, but its effects on the people involved are very different. We wouldn't expect the players in these two games to think the same way.

Talking about the stakes is in direct conflict with the scientific ideal of focusing on the science without talking about its effects on the scientists involved.

For example, from Gelman's response: "I just wanted to emphasize that there’s no reason her career, or even her famous Ted talk, has to rely on a particular intriguing idea (on there being a large and predictable effect of a certain pose) that happened not to work out." Well, except that maybe she wouldn't have gotten a Ted talk without it?

He's saying, hey, this paper shouldn't have been as important as it was. And according to the scientific ideal, we shouldn't get too attached to any particular results. But in practice, putting bad results aside sometimes requires a significant change of identity. Forgetting about that, even for a moment, is always going to come across as tin-eared.

The scientific ideal is more compatible with low stakes than high stakes. But talking about the game as if it's low-stakes (or ignoring the stakes altogether) when actually it's high-stakes is always going to make discussions focused on the science alone come across as unsympathetic.

Perhaps we should be teaching scientists that staking their identities on particular results is to be resisted as much as possible.

Science is about finding approximations of truth that are least influenced by the local context.

The whims of a particular scientist's ego (especially if you are that scientist!) make for a rather nasty contextual influence.

Of course, this is a difficult ask, but constantly striving towards this ideal is absolutely essential.

> Perhaps we should be teaching scientists that staking their identities on particular results is to be resisted as much as possible.

But does this make sense? Can a scientist survive without doing this? Can a scientist get very far without results right now?

Is this a problem of the scientist, or perhaps the social/economic expectation?

I think this is an institution level failure to adapt to what science is like in the modern age.

New results are significantly more difficult and expensive to achieve in modern science, as the easier stuff has already been conquered in centuries and decades past.

The harder problems that science now works on means that distinguishing between actual results and incorrect conclusions is also much more difficult.

The growth of science as a percentage of the population and economy has also finally slowed down a few decades ago, after centuries of rocket-like growth. It is now a maturing enterprise, instead of a high-growth startup.

This means increased competition for resources and mindshare from those wanting to do science. Not surprisingly, all proxy measures and heuristics for evaluating scientific success are thus more likely to be abused.

I don't think we have fully adapted to these fundamental changes.

Disclaimer: I'm not a historian or researcher, but I've heard aspects of the above from a variety of sources, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Personally if I was going to stake my professional reputation on a set of results, I'd expand from an exploratory study with a 20% chance of being wrong to a more rigorous study with, say, a 0.1% chance of being wrong.

Of course, that's much easier for people in STEM than it is for social scientists.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for the average scientist, it's that 20% risk... or nothing.

It's not like people don't learn about scientific ideals. Everyone involved certainly knows them well enough to at least pay lip service to them.

But you also can't prevent people from learning about how the world works: the rewards and penalties that will affect their careers.

Even if you could, teaching students a myth about what a career in science is like would basically be malpractice.

> Well, except that maybe she wouldn't have gotten a Ted talk without it?

A recent BBC event aimed at solving problems faced by women in tech flew Amy Cuddy in to give design and professional advice to the participants. The BBC story repeatedly celebrated Cuddy for giving the "second most watched TED talk ever". It also talked up the "Wonder Woman power pose" as a way to change your life.

Notably not present at the event were Cuddy's co-authors Carney and Yap, who have been vastly more receptive to the replication question, and less quick to promote uncertain results in non-academic channels.

Scientific falsehoods are almost always more impressive than the truth - they aren't constrained to realistic effects. At a certain point it starts to look like we're actively rewarding people for doing bad research and then rewarding them further for refusing to correct course.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-41476954

A senior poker player showing another in need of help how to play the game so that they have the best chance of coming out ahead is precisely the most sympathetic thing he could do.

Andrew Gelman is a rare breed -- he's brilliant, hard working, engages with the public, writes both technical and (semi-)pop articles, and isn't an asshole. And we works in a field -- mathematics -- where there is very little confusion as to whether a result is right or wrong.

This makes lesser people working in dirtier subjects very uncomfortable: when he hits them they have nothing of substance to hit back with except generic insults.

As someone outside the scientific-academic community, I find his posts very accessible for learning news/issues about studies. I greatly appreciate his passion in trying to stop junk science from reaching the media. Maybe his rhetoric is too brash and coarse for the respectful standards of scientific discourse, but it's as harsh as it needs to be for scolding media outlets for running with junk science:

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/05/npr-bites/

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/11/03/its-not-about-reality-its...

> ...and isn't an asshole...

I just read his blog for the first time and thought he’s a huge asshole. It seems to me the primary effect of science-shaming on the blog is to rally the pitchforks, something he can’t possibly be ignorant of. But he apparently keeps on doing it. No doubt it’s good for the hits, but doesn’t contribute to a dynamic that leads to good science. Oh wells.

Out of curiosity, what did you read?

I don't know. A lot of the people Gelman complains about are, in my opinion, building their career on fraudulent work. They are undermining science. If there was ever any doubt that they were deliberately deceiving people, that doubt disappeared upon seeing their response to simple and legitimate criticism.

A little needling on Gelman's blog is not too harsh, all things considered.

If you read the article, you'd identify him as a huge asshole.

Could you be more specific about which details give you this impression, and what you mean by it? I haven't interacted with Gelman personally, but having read both the NYT article and his response to it (as well as reading his blog and regularly his papers occasionally) I see him as someone who cares about "the truth" more than social niceties, but not as someone who gets any joy out of causing harm to others (which would be my definition of a "huge asshole").

But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty gracious in response to Cuddy's criticisms and how the NYT portrayed him. I honestly wasn't a huge fan of the article but re-reading it after a bit of sleep, and knowing that Gelman thought it was strong, I appreciated the issues it brought up.

I love (genuinely, non-ironically) that you reconsidered the merits of the article after reading Gelman's positive assessment of it. A possibly underappreciated benefit of Gelman's unabashed approach to criticism is that when he writes "I thought Dominus’s article was excellent and fair to all sides", it's reasonable to assume that he actually believes this rather than just pretending to "make nice" with scripted double-talk. His willingness to criticize things that he sees as wrong makes it possible (for me, and apparently you) to trust his stated opinion of things he sees as right.

And I don't think sexism can be dismissed outright, if people find it safer to talk shit to a woman compared to a man.

You prefaced it with an "if", but do you think it is common that "people find it safer to talk shit to a woman compared to a man"? I'd guess that at this point most male academics would be significantly more reluctant to criticise in print the work of a female colleague than that of a fellow male. I see Gelman as trying to adhere (possibly recklessly) to a gender-blind approach to criticism, and find this refreshing.

> do you think it is common that "people find it safer to talk shit to a woman compared to a man"?

I don't know whether they find it safer, but they certainly do it more, and are conditioned to do so from childhood.

A lot of the issues aren't from academics in journals, as they are from facebook groups and other places where the internet hyper-cycle of polarization and mob formation occurs.

Small correction: Gelman is at Columbia, not NYU.

Sexism is more than "safer to talk shit to a woman compared to a man" as you say in your article.

Sexism comes out in target choice, and the strength of which ones chases their prey, and the vehemence of attacks.

I do strongly believe that Cuddy was overly punished for being a woman, and being prominent in the field. Everyone loves when the "high and might" come "crashing down" -> the underdog stories and the desire for retribution are sought after more powerfully than (a) justified and (b) end worthiness of the goal.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that this has improved the field and made science better. It just means now that there is money and recognition to be made being attack dogs. That's hardly better.

As for Gelman, he wasn't portrayed in a great light, but I think it is fair. He's willing to encourage incivility and outright sexism and hostility as long as he doesnt have to talk to someone he disagrees with. That's the baseline definition of a coward there. And yes, I would discuss that with him in person and call him such a thing to his face.

> I do strongly believe that Cuddy was overly punished for being a woman, and being prominent in the field.

Theres a pattern of successful women receiving extreme levels of hate (Kathy Sierra et al). I'm not aware of this happening to guys.

>I'm not aware of this happening to guys.

Can you be more specific? Or do you mean this in a general sense? Because isn't this obvious ignorance if so?

Apologies, I could have been more clear.

What I mean is that I haven't heard of guys receiving death, rape etc threats accompanied by doxxing (ie 'this is his address, let's go get him') at the levels I've heard about with women[0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

What does this have to do with gamergate? If you've never seen guy/gal on guy death threats/doxxing, then I'd say you're just being will fully ignorant.

I can be ignorant without being wilful about it :) TBH, I avoid forums where that kind of thing goes on.

But what I'm doing here is drawing parallels between large groups of people self-organizing against a prominent, successful person.

A few examples come immediately to mind: Adam Orth, Tim Hunt, donglegate, and shirtgate.

It's interesting that (except for Adam Orth) the men involved, who were factually the victims of massive harassment, were portrayed as the villains by most of the media for minor infractions of progressive political values.

Edit: Just found another, an electoral college member who received death threats for voting for Trump (as he was required to).

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/308226-elec...

You haven't heard of it because the reporting and coverage is biased, not because it doesn't happen.

That's similar to the situation with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.

It's not that men aren't often the victims of these things (studies report that they are, at nearly the same rate as women[1, 2]). It's that men rarely report these things, and when they do, receive little sympathy, coverage, or justice.

1: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_...

2: http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-vic...

Thanks. Amazing stats in the Slate article. And the Adam Orth example in particular has strong parallels with high-profile examples of attacks on women.

Given the level of heat these discussions arouse, I understand the comments re modding in the item earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15507821

Online discussion certainly does inspire bad behavior. Hacker News is the only place I know of where people who disagree can still have civil discussions.

I'm in an adjacent academic field and know some of the principals in the story.

Based on private conversations with mutual friends, the reason Cuddy received so much heat is that she continues to profit off the mistaken findings and refuses to disavow them, despite overwhelming evidence.

She embodies everything wrong with the popular discussion of science.

The only analogue I can think of is Brian Wansink, whose scandal is much newer; who did not go nearly so far to profit from his own results; and who has received plenty of heat so far.

"Although 11 new papers have recently been published that do not show the downstream effects of power posing on behaviors, Cuddy is still fighting for power posing."

That's enlightening, and Brian Wansink is a great example, thank you.

I'd disagree with your position - After looking at the larger body of the article, your finding is not replicated.

> She mentioned, at a psychology conference where she was presenting her work, that a study had recently been conducted on power posing. “They found no hormonal effects,” she said before taking a breath. “That study is done very well, and I trust those results.” Although 11 new papers have recently been published that do not show the downstream effects of power posing on behaviors, Cuddy is still fighting for power posing. The research, she says, still shows its effect on feelings of power: At the conference, she presented a comprehensive meta-analysis, a version of which, she says, she will soon publish, with a strong P-curve supporting that, and she also presented a P-curve suggesting that power posing had a robust effect on self-evaluations, emotions and moods.

> Sexism comes out in target choice, and the strength of which ones chases their prey, and the vehemence of attacks.

Gelman regularly eviscerates the research of Brian Wansink on his blog, in the exact same way that he did to Cuddy.

He's considerably harder on Wansink than he was on Cuddy, actually.