Psychology Today: A Revolution Is Happening in Psychology. Here's How It's Playing Out

[Kalliope]

Psychology Today - May 2019
A Revolution Is Happening in Psychology. Here's How It's Playing Out by Matt Huston

In the last decade, behavioral scientists concluded that their field had taken a wrong turn. Efforts to root out false findings and bad practices spurred a crisis now poised to transform the landscape of psychology. Meet four scientists who are leading the charge.

The article presents the following academics:

• Michael Inzlicht, social psychologist at the University of Toronto
• Simine Vazire, personality psychologist at the University of California, Davis
• Andrew Gelman, statistician and political scientist at Columbia University
• Julia Rohrer, Ph.D. candidate at the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course and the University of Leipzig

I wonder if they are aware of the PACE trial?

 

[MSEsperanza]

Psychology Today - May 2019
A Revolution Is Happening in Psychology. Here's How It's Playing Out by Matt Huston

• Andrew Gelman, statistician and political scientist at Columbia University

I wonder if they are aware of the PACE trial?

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....ancet-journal-reputation-is-a-two-way-street/

PACE study and the Lancet: Journal reputation is a two-way street
Posted by Andrew on 5 January 2016, 9:14 am
One thing that struck me about this PACE scandal: if this study was so bad as all that, how did it taken so seriously by policymakers and the press?

There’s been a lot of discussion about serious flaws in the published papers, and even more discussion about the unforgivable refusal of the research team to share their data. But the question I want to address here is, how did they get into the position where this research got taken seriously in the first place?

As David Tuller, a public health and journalism lecturer at UC Berkeley, put it:

There are also some forum threads on Gelman or mentioning him.

 

[Andy]

The article presents the following academics:

• Michael Inzlicht, social psychologist at the University of Toronto
• Simine Vazire, personality psychologist at the University of California, Davis
• Andrew Gelman, statistician and political scientist at Columbia University
• Julia Rohrer, Ph.D. candidate at the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course and the University of Leipzig

I wonder if they are aware of the PACE trial?

Gelman certainly does
Tug of War: Epic battle over data in controversial paper on chronic fatigue syndrome - https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2015/12/18/28362/
More on the PACE (chronic fatigue syndrome study) scandal - https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....-pace-chronic-disease-syndrome-study-scandal/
PACE study and the Lancet: Journal reputation is a two-way street - https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....ancet-journal-reputation-is-a-two-way-street/
A Memoir of Chronic Fatigue Illustrates the Failures of Medical Research - https://www.newyorker.com/tech/anna...-illustrates-the-failures-of-medical-research

Cross-post with @MSEsperanza

 

[Kalliope]

Oh, excellent. Thanks @MSEsperanza and @Andy

I liked this passage from MEsperanza's link (we can add EAT and Paolo Macchiarini to the list of contested research published in the Lancet)

The Lancet editor is using his journal’s reputation to defend the controversial study. But, as the study becomes more and more disparaged, the sharing of reputation goes the other way.

I can imagine the conversations that will occur:

Scientist A: My new paper was published in the Lancet!

Scientist B: The Lancet, eh? Isn’t that the journal that published the discredited Iraq survey, the Andrew Wakefield paper, and that weird PACE study?

A: Ummm, yeah, but my article isn’t one of those Lancet papers. It’s published in the serious, non-politicized section of the magazine.

B: Oh, I get it: The Lancet is like the Wall Street Journal—trust the articles, not the opinion pages?

A: Not quite like that, but, yeah: If you read between the lines, you can figure out which Lancet papers are worth reading.

B: Ahhh, I get it.

Now we just have to explain this to journalists and policymakers and we’ll be in great shape. Maybe the Lancet could use some sort of tagging system, so that outsiders can know which of its articles can be trusted and which are just, y’know, there?

Long run, reputation should catch up to reality. But before the long run comes, there are a few people out there with chronic fatigue syndrome who don’t feel like waiting.

 

[ScottTriGuy]

I wonder if they are aware of the PACE trial?

I just emailed the U of Toronto researcher - Michael Inzlicht - but got an auto reply he's on sabbatical until July 1st.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

There used to be an Andrew Gelman active on forums. Young, bright and motivated. He may have 'disappeared' on purpose. If this is he then well done to get this out.

Edit: having read the piece I suspect there may be two Andrews Gelman.
Edit: There are.

 

[Kalliope]

 

[rvallee]

I'll believe that this revolution is happening once we get out of the "a revolution is happening" phase of things and onto actual consequences.

This is like the "change is coming for ME patients" that we have been reading about FOR 30 YEARS!

I mean even Richard Horton promotes this and then defends the garbage pile that is PACE when it is challenged exactly on those grounds. It's still just words, meaningless and without any impact.

 

[Snowdrop]

I admit I had similar thoughts on reading. Once upon a time I most definitely would have read this with optimism that change was happening. Words are not enough anymore.

Psychology depts at Universities would seem to be great cash cows bringing money in. Journals proliferate to accommodate. And it's great for the media. People read stories of human behaviour devouring simplistic content like they would read their daily horoscope (the info is often of a similar scientific rigour).

I really do hope there is change happening at the fundamental level. And lots of it.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I really do hope there is change happening at the fundamental level. And lots of it.

I think we may find that, like the Ouroboros, the system starts to eat its own tail. The Journal of Health Psychology has been printing the unthinkable quite a lot recently. And the runaway publishing system that allows any old nonsense to be published and garner reads and citations turns out to work even better for critical papers that garner huge numbers of reads and citations. The wizard of Pswoz is not going to get to hide behind a curtain for much longer I suspect. Like marestails in the garden the problem is likely to regrow itself, but I think there is an air of 2007 about psychological research. Not enough gold in the bank.

 

[Robert 1973]

Like marestails in the garden the problem is likely to regrow itself, but I think there is an air of 2007 about psychological research. Not enough gold in the bank.

Yes, and look how that turned out – the banks got bailed out at the taxpayers’ expense while the bankers gorged themselves on cheap credit and the inflation in asset values due to quantitive easing. Surely it must be possible to end the madness in psychological medicine – for its standards to be permanently raised to the level of other branches of medicine.