When the revolution came for Amy Cuddy

Interesting article about social psychology and the replication issue.

Belongs in Other News but that forum isn't open yet. Andrew Gelman gets a mention.

https://nyti.ms/2zjnPJ5

 

I like the line: "Behavioural Priming: It's all in the mind, but who's mind"

Wish I'd thought of that tag line for the BPS group and whatshername's book. Who's mind indeed.

 

It's odd the way the article states "then suddenly the rules changed"
As if, all of a sudden the concept good science was introduced to the world.

 

You're right, @BurnA, the rules didn't change. Its just people have got sick of dodgy studies that adhere to the letter of the law (no outright fraud), but not its spirit. FFS, you shouldn't need to be told what the 'rules' are, you should know from your training how to avoid doing bad science. Too many people have been getting away with exploiting science's loopholes for too long.

The Amy Cuddy controversy has been HUGE in Psychology. It sparked the whole 'methodological terrorism' debate. Amy got rich and famous on the basis of some pretty dodgy findings that no-one could replicate. Susan Fiske, Amy Cuddy's supervisor, retaliated by describing the critics of Amy's work as "methodological terrorists".

Andrew Gelman famously responded with this:

Other articles about the furore:
Scientists are furious after a famous psychologist accused her peers of 'methodological terrorism'
Three Cheers for Methodological Terrorists