The sad part about the field is that in the end nobody really cares what science turned out to be fake… because nobody actually cares about the specific results that come out of psychology research.
I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psych...
This whole debacle matters a lot socially: careers ruined, reputations in tatters, lawsuits flying. But strangely, it doesn't seem to matter much scientifically. That is, our understanding of psychology remains unchanged ...
That might sound like a dunk on Gino and Ariely, or like a claim about how experimental psychology is wonderfully robust. It is, unfortunately, neither. It is actually a terrifying fact that you can reveal whole swaths of a scientific field to be fraudulent and it doesn't make a difference.
---
Also interestingly the author apparently studied under Dan Gilbert at Harvard, so he's an "insider". I remember >10 years ago seeing the "happiness science" from Gilbert go around:
https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-aft...
Although I actually think the core insight is a good one, and a memorable one -- people are unable to predict what makes them happy. They think they will be happy if they buy a new car to show off, but if you ask them afterward, that didn't really happen.
There was another one of these "TED memes" that turned out to be widely mocked / unreplicable:
When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy
As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolut...
The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true. The whole subject is broken down in this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...
This is a characterization that you have just made, not one that the person you are replying to made. They were very clear: "The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true."
Even to say something is "more pseudo than science" almost directly contradicts your characterization, because it implies that there is both science and pseudoscience.
For instance, controversies surrounding the PACE trial, which explored treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), illustrate the profound implications of research integrity. Critics have condemned the trial as "biased and profoundly flawed," arguing that its deficiencies have led to detrimental effects on patients' lives and treatment approaches. This controversy underscores the significance of research outcomes.
For more insights into the academic dishonesty surrounding ME/CFS and its consequences on patients I recommended this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/chroni...
This issue highlights why it's crucial for both the scientific community and the public to demand rigor and transparency in research, especially when the well-being of vulnerable populations is at stake.