Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

John_Maxwell_IV comments on Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 09 January 2017 08:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (141)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 11 January 2017 03:20:07AM 3 points [-]

At this point, it seems like if it was written about in Cialdini's Influence, you can safely assume it's not real.

Are you sure "does not replicate" is the same as "not real"? If we can't trust the studies that found these effects, why are you so confident in the replications?

Comment author: gwern 11 January 2017 04:47:33PM 7 points [-]

Time-reversal heuristic: if the failed replication had come first, why would you privilege the original over that? If the replications cannot be trusted, despite the benefit of clear hypotheses to test and almost always higher power & incorporation of heterogeneity, a fortiori, the original cannot be trusted either...

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 January 2017 12:11:06AM 2 points [-]

It would be surprising if the necessary level of power & incorporation of heterogeneity always happened to fall right in between that of the original study and the replication. I would expect that in many cases, the necessary level is above that of both studies, which means neither can be considered definitive.