Most social science results have never been replicated

[Cynical]

Wait, some people still think the “science” in “social science” is anything other than massive overcompensation? At least economists have the decency to call their science “dismal”.

[catgrin]

Here are the general results of testing from the Social Psychology abstract: The research tested the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples using 6,344 participants.
• 10 effects replicated consistently
• One showed weak replication
• Two effects didn’t replicate

So the journal suggests that original studies were most likely often well-designed and gave good results. It didn’t just bash social science because of a general lack of duplication. The inability to repeat some social science research easily is a problem, but it may not automatically signify poor information. Some areas of what we call “social science” are definitely less science than others. Unfortunately, disparate studies have been lumped together under the sobriquet.

I think my favorite quote from the article is this:

Caution about single studies should go both ways, though. Too often, a single original study is treated—by the media and even by many in the scientific community—as if it definitively establishes an effect. Publications like Harvard Business Review and idea conferences like TED, both major sources of “thought leadership” for managers and policymakers all over the world, emit a steady stream of these “stats and curiosities.”

That’s the real problem we’ve been seeing. As soon as a study with sparkling results comes out, someone wants to go to press on it, and deliver it to a public that may not understand that one study just isn’t enough to say that a question has been answered soundly. Multiple studies, either duplicated or related, that present the same results, are what’s needed.

[PrestonSturges]

@anon62122146

Also, large proportions of respected economists have publicly made predictions about their own field that were completely fucking wrong multiple times in my adult life. An episode like that would shake a real science to its core and shatter its paradigm. In these cases, however, those exact same people just keep repeating the exact same bullshit like nothing ever happened. This makes it clear that, for most of them, their views on economics are pure ideology and have nothing to do with science at all.

But they have figured out that repeating the same senseless ideological viewpoint for decades results in a steady paycheck from wealthy patrons. Because the only thing standing between us and utopia is the progressive income tax and the EPA.

[retchdog]

yeah, it’s kind of like “computer science” or “data science”.

except that social scientists at least try to copy the methodology of the natural sciences.