= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (9th thread, May 2016) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
I believe the whole idea of learning styles is a pseudoscience, so you not finding more correlations could actually be the correct answer... which almost no one cares about, because negative findings are boring.
Publication bias is probably even greater sin than p-hacking, because in theory any study that found some result using p-hacking could be follow by a few failed attempts at replication. Except that those failed attempts at replication usually don't get published.
The idea of learning styles as "fits better to a specific person" wasn't interesting to me - instead I took it as inspiration for natural division of "ways people could learn this thing in general".
As for publication bias, I don't think anyone published their research. ... but if there had been a really interesting result, I bet someone would have tried to get their research published somehow.