replication crisis
Article
replication crisis is a recurring concept in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between August 30, 2021 and July 15, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as “looking back on the last few years of replication crisis”; “nobody had heard of the replication crisis unless they happened to be reading the medical journals”; “thinking about politics or meta-ethics or the replication crisis”. It most often appears alongside Dan Ariely, USA, 2012.
Metadata
- Category: Concepts
- Mention count: 3
- Issue count: 3
- First seen: August 30, 2021
- Last seen: July 15, 2022
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- Dan Ariely (2 shared issues)
-
- USA (2 shared issues)
-
- 2012 (1 shared issues)
-
- Acceptable Losses (1 shared issues)
-
- Acceptable Losses: The Debatable Origins of Loss Aversion (1 shared issues)
-
- Adam Smith (1 shared issues)
-
- Alex Imas (1 shared issues)
-
- Apollo (1 shared issues)
-
- As I Lay Dying (1 shared issues)
-
- Astralcodexten Com (1 shared issues)
-
- Authority (1 shared issues)
-
- autistic reductionists (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
Jason Hreha’s article on The Death Of Behavioral Economics has been going around lately, after an experiment by behavioral econ guru Dan Ariely was discovered to be fraudulent. The article argues that this is the tip of the iceberg - looking back on the last few years of replication crisis, behavioral economics has been undermined almost to the point of irrelevance.
Inline links: The Death Of Behavioral Economics
There was a time when “bets are a tax on bullshit” or “words are cluster-structures in thingspace” were new and exciting ideas. There was a time when nobody had heard of the replication crisis unless they happened to be reading the medical journals where John Ioannidis was publishing. The rationalist community scooped all this stuff up, broke it down into easily digestible bits, and put it in one place. I happened to be sitting in that place, which meant I had the privilege of transmitting it to many of you.
Before diving in to my own thoughts on all these arguments, it’s worth mentioning that, as it positions itself well within the “people don’t actually behave rationally” line of psychological, sociological, and behavioural economic research, the spectre of the replication crisis in those fields looms over the book.
I didn’t need to be convinced about this aspect either way, but it was an uncomfortable experience to read about it and feel how unconvinced I’d be if I weren’t already on board, and I don’t really know what the solution is. It’s hard for popular science books to work with the kind of rigour that’s needed to play in these domains, but I don’t want popular science to die out completely. I could get very distracted going down this route, so I just want to say “the replication crisis is clearly an issue for this sort of thing; deal with that how you will” and move on.
Overall, I’d recommend The Righteous Mind. If that seems nuts given the preceding 10,000 words then that’s only because the ways in which it messes up are extremely interesting. This is not the kind of book you get mad at and want to throw at the wall. This is the kind of book you keep finding yourself “reading” with a thumb in the page, gazing out the window, thinking about politics or meta-ethics or the replication crisis.