Please forward this error screen to 188. Gremlins in the work of Amy J. The one that had almost as many errors as data points? The one where, each time a correct the mistakes exercises pdf was issued, more problems would spring up?
I’d rather not mix my mythical-beast metaphors. For an assortment of reasons, I found myself reading this article one day: This Old Stereotype: The Pervasiveness and Persistence of the Elderly Stereotype by Amy J. This paper was just riddled through with errors. First off, its main claims were supported by t statistics of 5. But that wasn’t the worst of it. It turns out that some of the numbers reported in that paper just couldn’t have been correct. It’s possible that the authors were doing some calculations wrong, for example by incorrectly rounding intermediate quantities.
And yet, the sentence about paired comparisons is pretty much the only evidence for the authors’ purported effect. Try removing that sentence from the Results section and see if you’re impressed by their findings, especially if you know that the means that went into the first ANOVA are possibly wrong too. These people are psychologists, not statisticians, so maybe we shouldn’t fault them for making some errors in calculation, working as they were in a pre-Markdown era. The claims in this paper are part of an open-ended theory that can explain just about any result, any interaction in any direction.
Publication’s all about finding something statistically significant and wrapping it in a story. So if it’s not one thing that’s significant, it’s something else. It’s ridiculous because one of the key claims is entirely based on a statistically significant p-value that is no longer there. As with Richard Tol’s notorious paper, the gremlins feed upon themselves, as each revelation of error reveals the rot beneath the original analysis, and when the authors protest that none of the errors really matter, it makes you realize that, in these projects, the data hardly matter at all. We’ve encountered all three of these authors before.
Amy Cuddy is a co-author and principal promoter of the so-called power pose, and she notoriously reacted to an unsuccessful outside replication of that study by going into deep denial. Michael Norton is a coauthor of that horrible air-rage paper that got so much press a few months ago, and even appeared on NPR. It was in a discussion thread on that air-rage paper that the problems of the Cuddy, Norton, and Fiske paper came out. People search for meaning when they approach a new decade in chronological age. We have interlocking research teams making fundamental statistical errors over and over again, publishing bad work in well-respected journals, promoting bad work in the news media. A whole fleet of gremlins, indeed. In some ways, Richard Tol is more impressive in that he can do it all on its own, and these psychology researchers work in teams.
But the end result is the same. Error piled upon error piled upon error piled on refusal to admit that their conclusions could be completely mistaken. I’m not saying these are bad people. Sure, maybe they cut corners here or there, or make some mistakes, but those are all technicalities—at least, that’s how I’m guessing they’re thinking. Putting this in perspective, this is about the mildest bit of scientific misconduct out there.
83 in missing funds, no dangerous policy implications, no mistreatment of cancer patients, no monkeys harmed by any of these experiments. It’s just bad statistics and bad science, simple as that. These are standard errors in the field. These people get promoted to tenure at the top universities. These people are the ones that NEVER have any critique of ANY of my statistical methods in any of my talks, papers, dissertation, etc.
But at least maybe we can supply some better models for future social science researchers. Statistical Troll Extraordinaire. I am not even sure they are right. The gremlins feed upon themselves, but they are always . I already informed the editor of the journal of these issues some months ago. If they want to read this all, retiring social psychologists? In addition to the many ideas regularly noted, this would have been a serious concern.