I’ve recently done some reading on the replicability crisis in social psychology. Highlights include Andrew Gelman’s timeline of changes in the field, Schimmack, Heene, and Kesavan’s overview of problems with priming research, focusing on studies selected for Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (which is still worth reading, despite Kahneman’s acceptance of the conclusions of the article), and various Data Colada posts, including a recent one that demonstrates how even meta-analyses can go wrong.
It can be discouraging to know that so many peer-reviewed studies are invalid, but it’s great to see that researchers are moving toward more rigorous testing of previously-accepted findings. While all people should avoid jumping to conclusions from insufficient evidence, this is especially relevant to data practitioners — we must be extra careful, because it’s very easy to unintentionally mislead others with data.
View original post 413 more words