Social Psychology published results proven false.

bump for sci comments

>>8364558
>SJW pseudoscience is a scam
More news at 10

>did expirements twice
>because 1 didn't have the same results that means it's not true

aren't you supposed to be good at science?

>>8364558

I agree with you generally but really?

>theatlantic

that is your source for your bitching? gtfo and graduate high school for the sake of everyone on /sci/

>>8364558
>BTFO
>SJW/liberalism
>>>/pol/ go back to your containment board

>>8364558
This female is attractive and I'm posting to let everyone know I'm appreciating her hair, facial structure, breasts, overall muscoloskeletal construction, waist, and hips. Despite the latter two being perceptually masked by the high-leg nature of her clothing.

Don't have much to say about sociology beyond that it's ravaged modern society and allowed us to far more efficiently build our own hell. Use it for what it's worth, learn a bit about crowd psychology. Recognize when the oldest of methods of hierarchical control are being employed, divide and conquer.

>>8364844
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/31/12653.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/26/7112
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5791/1307.abstract
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/16/simple-writing-exercise-helps-break-vicious-cycle-that-holds-back-black-students/#.V-TJXckllRp
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/06/17/0162373715581709
http://inid.gse.uci.edu/files/2011/03/Hanselman-Rozek-Grigg-Borman-in-press-New-Evidence-on-Self-Affirmation-Effects-and-Theorized-Sources-of-Heterogeneity-from-Large-scale-Replications.pdf

There, I clicked the links for you, how else should I spoon feed you today?

>>8364846
The funny thing the lack of rigor is entirely because of the social psychology's ideological bias. Yet you blame /pol/ a fucking board on 4 chan.

File: CUCK.png (14KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 246x205px

>>8365605
>the funny thing...
Gee, I wonder where did I see this kind of syntaxis?

>>8365614
Did you save a thumbnail?

>>8365660
bfto

>researchers have failed to replicate

The replication wasn't the problem, the results were the problem.

Like a lot of studies done within the field of social science the results to said studies and experiments were blown out of proportion for the sake publication and funding.

>>8365684
>>8364844
I thought sci of all boards would have people who would actually read the article before commenting. Guess I may as well go back to /pol/ now.

>>8367490
The majority of people on /sci/ are STEM majors, so it's not surprising that /sci/ isn't that interested in sociology/psychology.

I know it's been already said here, but I think (I'm saying "I think" because I've never been on /pol/) this topic would have had a far greater reception on /pol/.

>>8367490
>I thought sci of all boards would have people who would actually read the article before commenting.
If you can't make a point on your own and resort to "just read what x has to say" when your summation is criticised it's not really worth talking to you, it just means you're either lazy or don't understand what it is you've read.

What is your implication OP? As a discipline of study, social science can be far more challenging than the traditional sciences for the simple reason that stating or even finding a 'hard' truth is impossible without taking large samples that may or may not be representive even so.

Social sciences is challenging, and has setbacks, but that's no reason to shudder quote the hell out of it.

Fuck the SJW shit though.

>>8364558
> sociology and psychology papers are unrepeatable and show faked results
in other news bears shit in the woods
>>>/lit/
>>>/his/

>>8367508
Then you would think they wouldn't answer, since they don't know what they're talking about?

>>8367520
I'm not that guy actually. It's just clear when people couldn't even be bothered to read the article because it directly addresses both of their comments.

>>8364857
I concur, I would very much enjoy copulating with said female

File: 1474597081460.png (134KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 306x306px

>it's another "all social science is garbage and shouldn't be trusted except when it proves niggers have a slightly lower iq" thread

I don't get what this article is implying. Anyone could have told you a study of voter turnout with a sample size of 114 people is completely useless.

File: Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! MOTHER FUCKER!.jpg (119KB, 670x350px)

119KB, 670x350px

>>8368405
are you a niggers?

>>8368391

Anon I'm >>8365684 have YOU actually read the article in question?

Because the issue of replication was not problem. As stated in the article OP link to,

>“Failure to generalize might be a better phrase than failure to replicate,” Gerber says.

Both the voter and school study were successfully replicated but the results were different arguably because of timing and methodology. Particularly the results the second time around by a different team showed much more "weaker" positive results in both studies. So the issue is more with precision rather than replication.

Rather than trying to catch yourself or others as acting smart maybe you should read more about the current problem plaguing social science studies and publications. That being the fact that people who create or work on studies like this tend inflate certain results to achieve necessary publication. They do this because showing "weak" results in a experiment even if it is positive is not necessary news or publication worthy.

http://andrewgelman.com/2011/09/10/the-statistical-significance-filter/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

File: diederik-stapel-bronvermelding-nos.jpg (26KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x349px

>>8364558
not the first time. this is what happens when you abandon truth for narrative. pic very related.

>>8364558
>Psychology
>Science

Psychology isn't a science though. Who is pretending it is?

>>8368706
>have YOU actually read the article in question?
Of course I have. I'm glad I could inspire you to go back and actually read it.

>Because the issue of replication was not problem.
>Both the voter and school study were successfully replicated
But not if you ask the authors of those studies. The entire thrust of the article is that even if Bryan and Cohen are right (i.e., that their studies were not properly replicated), their methods aren't practical if they're so difficult to apply.

Like I said, if I wanted to read academic conspiracy theories, I'll just go to /pol/

>>8364558
>to promote SJW/liberalism.
Stopped reading there.