The Fall of a Superstar Psychologist 

Honestly dishonest😂

It doesn't change much to the core message.

we all make mistakes--props for being clear and upfront about these ones. It's a low bar that many people on youtube fail to meet.

Appreciate your correcting your errors. We all make mistakes; it's the few that publicly correct them and earn my respect. Subscribed!

I could only make it halfway through because of that incessant horn melody.

Could you say that Dan was just being predictable rational given the incentives and lack of real consequences?

Stop watching and start making a new Video soon, Rohin ❤

when you become a patient of somebody who has committed medical fraud, it becomes a lot more personal and a great deal more dangerous. It seems that the academic / scientific community hasn't any sense of ethics or responsibility to the public. It's a big business profit for bullshit.

All social science.

​@@lymphomasurviveyep social "science" is 95% no science at all but just repeating of pre formed propaganda.

So fucking true, the emphasis is put on finding something new, and very little on eliminating possibilities

We have been doing research on the LACK of connection between correctly holding one correct belief about smoking/ nicotine use and holding a very similar correct belief. We had to submit to several journals to get the first two papers published and the third has gone out to reviewers 3 and 4.

Honestly I agree

It's super frustrating. I am a PhD student in engineering, so a bit different than psych but the research process is similar no matter where you are. I spend tons of my time trying things that do not work and I don't even expect to work. And you know what, that data coming back and telling me it didn't work is incredibly helpful. It validates that my logic is somewhat correct and helps eliminate possible avenues we can go down. But it sucks I could never publish something saying "I did X, it did not work, but here is what we learned about the system in question"

This is the real problem

Who was the other one?

I'm here for that reference, wouldn't expect it here. Well done xD

@@41tl Francesca Gino. Mentioned in the video and on the same paper (but different study) as the rental car-data.

@@003998 Study = paper. I think you mean the same JOURNAL. The same journal published both papers/studies.

Plus damages

Or just get multiple experts so they can call the others' bullshit.

​@@thr3treebase886A certified Tricia Cotham moment

They're committing fraud. It seems like academia just didn't want the world to see how big the problem is maybe?

Bro! 😠😠

You must be a very nice person. In my own comment I reacted by calling the editor a moron for the choice of a 5-second-long loop containing a melodic fragment repeated ad nauseam and then repeated some more for 20 minutes non stop, as if this could ever work.

Might as well have played cbat for 20 minutes

But you can't have a video for adults without constant music in the background. They might get bored! /s

He should have to use one of those looping sleep noise generators for a week.

Journalists are subject to publish or perish, too, so it's not a big surprise they will promote a single study like it's truth.

The wonders science

They know. They don't give a shit. It's good clickbait.

@@ryanergo754 I think that may be true in some cases, but it's also certainly true that a lot of journalists are just ignorant about the science they report on. Whether it's laziness or greed, the net result is the same.

people need to collectively punish this behavior. We want to want this as a society, which means more public education.

looooooooooool. Real recognise Real.

The scammer community

Projection for his own protection lol!

I was wondering where I recognized dude from! Makes sense lmao

Good catch.

AMEN! why everyone feels the need to put sooo much production is beyond me, like the old Dragnet (dating myself) show said "Just the facts maam" everything else is just a distraction like the sorry music vids over the last 10 years when the shot is cut every 3 quarters of a second, sooo over this crap.

Oh God I can't unhear it now x.x

Mine too

Huh?

I was fine until you mentioned it 😖

And he was only suspended from working in the lab for ONE YEAR. I wouldn’t want him in any lab EVER.

as someone with two eyes, I can confirm that this video can be viewed in different resolutions

So what are you saying boy? That shocks you or something?

I'm amazed it wasn't a career-ending move.

One assumes he studied under Peter Venkman at some point.

then we need to change our entire culture, all of its values, and possibly its economic system as well. Or just get used to the spectacle

Not to mention that they use their position to push their politics as well, on top of their dubious work

They should make sure during peer reviews that every 'groundbreaking' research is replicable at least in a small scale before publishing them

@@marcodallolio9746 universities and research centers might just need a better Coms department

_Enforcement_ of the academic honesty needs to be promoted.

Bro.

Basically studies regarding fraud should be approached with caution.

Perhaps we need a large study about fraudulent research first....@@Yt-qi9ot

AND it the EXACT SAME research

Research is me-search. I’ve seen it too many times

Talk about gaslighting

Her name is pronounced Aimee not Amy... omg, u totes did that on purpose two I can tell gurlfriend. What's ur prob there Karen? U goin' all Jenny Jam Box for Mr Half Beard over there? Give it up gurlfriend...

Yeah, that's what's scary... One of the findings that HAS replicated is the reality of false memories. It's almost like he's intentionally trying to manipulate her into creating a false memory.

​@@jennyanydots2389Are you good?

Yes that was so damning. Poor Amy just wanted him to gtfo, and he was so determined to pull her down with him.

Bro?

It’s one of the more entertaining things on the internet.

Yes I live for this!

"I see a bus coming. Do not contact me again." Oof.

The bus.

so agree. had to stop watching. driving me MAD

damnit, now I can't stop hearing it.

Hahaha, thank you. I immediately went elsewhere.

how do u know it went on for 21min if u didnt listen the entire thing 🤔

No sé si son los 20 min. Pero deje de verlo a los 4 min. que lastima hacer un video con tanto cuidado e información, y ponerle esa música! Completamente innecesario

@@seriouslythodonteven Are you joking?

You bastard. I didn't even notice the music before. Now I can't UNHEAR it. Can't even pay attention to the video anymore...

I think I've read about that. Wasn't he the one who published fabricated results on high temperature superconductors or something similar?

@@icp7201 yeah, mainly organic materials displaying semiconductor behavior, there were some superconductor claims as well

It is extremely damaging to science. People waste time and money that could have been invested in other research. I wonder now with AI coming up with BS papers for people to publish.

I'm not familiar with either the subject or academia in general, and I just opened this video, but shouldn't she have made her findings public and completed her phd on the fact that they weren't reproducible? What's the point of that whole endeavour if you go into it not prepared for it to not be reproducible?

​@@issecret1I think you can only get a PhD for a contribution of something original to a field, and failing to replicate a result doesn't really count. If her work was dependent on replicating something, it was probably because she had a novel way of doing it or some other hypothesis that depended on it. If she wasn't expecting to fail to replicate it, it would be a huge waste of time

Such an excellent observation

Too bad he didn't find the other half of his beard.

Duper’s Delight

This is also sad because this type of misinformation is harmful. Sure the studies about writing your name on top vs bottom is kinda harmless, but giving people fuel to not trust doctors is already such a huge issue. People literally die because they don’t trust doctors and this jerk is just giving them more reasons to avoid medical help.

@@jennyanydots2389that’s actually a bit of a distasteful comment: the one thing Ariely never lied about is him stepping on a live mine during military training

This signature tells everything about this guy and his bizarre behavior.

@@yongmrchen Haha, exactly!

"Irrationally yours" is cute if it's a letter from your long-lost love telling you they're moving back across the Atlantic to be with you. "Irrationally yours" is NOT cute if you're the author of a book called "Predictably Irrational" that you're now trying to shove down the throat of every professional relationship you have and are apparently trying to claim the word "irrational" as your personal branding

Not surprised. How many of the Forbes 30 Under 30 ended up being fraudsters?

Isn’t Ted curated and TEDX the garbage one?

Jew.

​@@marcanton5357 Oh, so edgy. Boring.

@@JohnsDough1918 It's a pattern of behavior. Not recognizing it is what bores do.

Great comment

Telling on himself like he’s Johnny Silvestri.

@@paullopez2021lol! Excellent parallel and very topical. Well done, Sir!

For what it’s worth, though, for an exam and a cleaning around 2002, I went to a cheap-assed dental school’s subsidized sliding-scale clinic, they took X-rays, and told me I needed to have all four wisdom teeth out IMMEDIATELY, and that I otherwise had 7 cavities in need of filling, but that they would not even touch the cavities until I’d had the wisdom teeth out as otherwise it’d be a “waste of time.” My teeth felt fine, so, horrified at the prospect of it all, I went crying to my soft-hearted Mom, who because I was then a broke-ass offered to pay for me to see her quite expensive dentist … and he not only said nothing about my wisdom teeth, he didn’t find a single cavity. Now 21 years later I still have my wisdom teeth (one even emerged), and I’ve only had two fillings since. I tell that story a LOT! Regardless of Dan Ariely’s methodology, always get a second opinion before you let a dentist do major work on your teeth … especially if that dentist stands to collect a shit-ton of money for the work from a bottomless fund, and especially if it’s a school looking for indigent folk to practice on.

I'm gonna be real, I've had zero cavities in my entire life. I should; I'm a heavy smoker, drink coffee, all the worst things you can imagine. *Zero cavities, zero anything.* A dentist is usually erasing their evidence when they're performing any surgeries as a result *of the surgery.* I believe the dentist part.

I took Arieli’s online course through Duke and now own all his books. Not happy; I guess I should demand refunds.

If true, Bless u for your academic honesty

Well said brother. Academy needs an urgent reform to replace the "publish or perish" mentality. Viewing research with a quantity over quality approach has opened the flood gates for so many fraudsters

It's really all about money

This is why you should worship academics and scientists. At this point the academic institutions are rotten to the core.

@@GiegueX In a lecturer in the field of Urban Planning my lecturer had assigned a reading that while on exactly the topic she wanted was poorly written and poorly referenced. The first thing she did was point out the journal it is in skips a ton of the review process just to publish quickly and that we should avoid it. I can't remember the journal right now and my university intranet is currently being maintained but it was concerning that this is a new thing to pop up

Going back to the 19th century, we have the Abbot Gregor Mendel, whose results in plant breeding experiments were judged 50 years after his death by the statistician Sir Ronald Fisher to have been too good to be true. Fisher's own colleague, the psychologist Sir Cyril Burt, has also been judged by posterity to have faked his later results.

It's also interesting, so it can make money. So there will be fraud.

@@adanufgail That's the power of "Popular Science." Stephen Toulmin's essay on Modern Metaphysics explained how it has replaced what our ancestors called "Natural Theology," with its broad generalizations about life, the universe and everything that could never be justified by any evidence. Pop Sci is what we want to believe, what gives us comfort, and where the big money really is.

@@fotter9567 interesting! You never really hear of physicists or economists falsifying their data. Also I read in a news article from earlier this year that many of Diederik Stapel's papers are still being cited even though they are retracted as well. Such a strange field of study

It’s almost a fraud discipline. Sad

I work in industry now. In Big Pharma, they lie for big money. At least there's a good reason.

You ask an engineer, a mathematician, and a statistician "What is 1 + 1?" The engineer answers "Two! God, everyone here is so much dumber than me!", the mathematician says "The answer approaches two". The statistician leans in and whispers "What do you want the answer to be?"

1 in 20 should be noise interpreted as signal with a significance cutoff of 0.05 without a bonferroni correction assuming they aren't using Beyesian analysis

It all goes back to the incentive structure imposed by profit-driven capitalism. Only dismantling that will ultimately solve most of our problems

@@jrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjr i think the significance here is that the people who conclude that its probably just noise posing as a signal, and go back to the testing phase to make sure their conclusions are right, get shunted. Meanwhile the people willing to pull on the alarm bell saying "look at what amazing signals i found" the fastest and with the least scientific rigour get "promoted". One costs more money to, usually, disprove itself and the other gets NYT best selling books/ted talks. though in this situation it seems ariely just produced his signals out of thin air rather than making any honest mistakes...

PhD chemist here, what researcher doesn't keep their data. I have files of original NMR, IR, UV, mass spectra, lab notebooks, quarterly research reports going back >20 years. Behavioural research does not qualify as science. It is a mixture of religion and performing art at its best.

Yep, guy's a PhD and is pulling the "oops, forgot something, sorry" line. No.

@@nandi123 I dunno. I agree, on one hand, with the first part of your statement. On the other hand, "Behavioral research does not qualify as science" seems like an incredibly broad dismissive mandate for a field that you are well and truly *not a part of.* Behavioral research has led to things like CBT which is one of the ONLY statistically significant treatment methods for things like OCD, of which I am a part. There's a repeatability crisis in psych at the moment, and it takes a fool to ignore that, but it takes an equal fool to reject, wholesale, the non-fraudulent, entirely repeatable data over the course of the longevity of the field. It's one thing to say "Disgraced ex-Doctor and forever-Shithead Andrew Wakefield is a hack who faked data to upsell vaccines to kids with autism," and another to say "Immunology as a field is not science because of Andrew Wakefield, disgraced ex-doctor and forever-shithead."

I am not in that psychology world, or any of that good stuff but when this video started, my gut told me this guy is a fraud - his leaving top universities, so many errors or left out vital information in his studies and most of all the gaslighting emails he sent to Aimee - what a fraudualant narcissist. Yes, he does know exactly what he is doing, the only difference between him and Jekel and Hyde Elizabeth Holmes is she's in jail. Their similarities are they are not bothered one bit by standing in public telling boldface lies.

​@@candyh4284tbf though. The amount of non repeated research is enormous. The whole field of social sciences is built upon flimsy frameworks. And yet, no lecturers will even mention that fact. Students just goes in, building more research on hypothesises that were built upon other hypothesis. Even if they were accurate. The accumulated errors skews the whole thing

It makes me angry that he got over a million bucks. He's living the easy life for a long time.

Jew.

Welcome to hell 😂

It gives all the old-school economics professors more ammunition to write off behavioral economics as BS. And bro doesn’t even have a minor in economics!

​@@marcanton5357 Or. what??

Posted a comment saying about the same thing before I scrolled down and saw yours!

You took the words out of my mouth! My thoughts exactly!

Agreed, I'm a few minutes in and it's already annoying

Yeah first and foremost great content, but my ears keep wondering if this is a caravan sound alike haha

Seconding this. Especially when there s audio replay from interviews etc

What's really impressive is how that that went unnoticed. isn't there supposed to be peer review?

​@@TehPwnererpeer review is flexible to considerations like credentials, of which Ariely has plenty

@@muhammadputera6593 If peer review is not double blind, it it worthless

I think a lot of these guys are good at everything they need to do to get into these positions, but often find it's hard to do new and interesting research once they're there, so the pressure leads them to "massage" things a little. But lying and cheating are their own skill trees and they just aren't good at it. Not to make excuses for them. They should be humble and accept these cushy positions may not be for them, but humans are gonna human.

Makes you wonder how much fraud from more clever fraudsters is out there. Any undergrad could have just used a Gauß distribution and made the fraud undetectable.

Me too 😭

I know it was so distracting and annoying 🙃

I think it’s more like 5-7, but these people need to believe in what they’re pushing out. I’d argue that people not having any confidence in the videos they post and having to cram unnecessary production is arguably as egregious as the focus of the video. If you put out quality content, all the fluff is simply unnecessary.

i didnt even notice till i read this

someone should do a study on why no one noticed

This!

What fraud is there specifically in nutrition research?

It's everywhere, widespread and systematic from back in the 1950's. Lies about food are why most everybody is so fat and sick...sick, food addicted people make more money for the food and medical people. Just look around at most people. @@hiker-uy1bi

Especially in the medical fields

@@hiker-uy1bi Ever heard of Big Cheese?

Wait, he was Freakanomics?

​@@Seth9809no

​@Seth9809 no freakonomics was steven levitt and Stephen dubner

Ugh why do people still bring up Freakonomics 🙄

​@@saehisayawait, has Freakonomics been debunked or something?

This dude must have quite the trail of pissed off former colleagues around him.

...Polygraphs? Are you kidding? How did his career go anywhere after that? Polygraphs are about 50% accurate, and I'm being generous. Not even intensive brain scans would work. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, you start believing your own lies. Someone who's got a mastery of their mental faculties could probably even manipulate a brain scan. Edit: How? If you can compartmentalize your thoughts, if you have the ability (or rather lack the ability) to express proper emotion from some cluster-B disorders, treating the statement as a "recital" instead of a lie, I can probably think of more. Are they tested or proven? No, but does that stop actual psychologists?

He made it and suffered no consequences because he's Hebrew.

​@@charlesferdinand422ah yippee antisemitism just say Jewish you're just trying to bypass filters

​@@charlesferdinand422is that why nprr tried to elevate, then bust him?

What a coward

such a brilliant biting comment bravo

it's mostly fraud- all over and at every school. There is no real scientific research happening and there hasn't been since the 20th century.

And what does that make you, unless you report this? I'm chairing a research ethics committee, and we do take complaints seriously, and we do correct mistakes. If we did not, it would return to bite us later. Researchers are normal people, most behave well, some don't.

@@tzenophile Are you tenured? Do you get your paycheck from the university, or from grants? Did you realize retaliation is a thing? Did you realize that confronting someone in a position of authority with an accusation can cost one's career? Brave words, man. Let's see how you can protect the careers of people who bring complaints to your committee. The fact that you haven't spoken of these facts speaks volumes about your committee's ability to effectively address ethics complaints. If your committee can not protect whistleblowers, and it probably can't, it's acting to provide the appearance of a process to address ethics complaints and actually papering over the malfeasance of senior faculty. University politics is poison. If you actually hold someone powerful accountable, you will be blackballed and you will suffer.

You took the words right out of my mouth lol

It’s so annoying

I don’t ever write in the comments section, but came here to say the exact same thing. 21 minutes of excruciating pain. At times, I even realized I had no idea what the guy was talking about because my mind was trapped in the loop.

Yeeeeessss

I fast forwarded to see if it had been fixed. It has not so that’s why I stopped watching it

Don't trust any member of the tribe bud

@@troycambo The fuck is that supposed to mean?

People (and new scientists in all areas) need to learn, look up at the data, not the people making/collecting the data. There's no heroes in science, just people doing their work, and unless their work is world breaking, they are still people, a very fallible one.

@@troycambo what are you, a vietnamese neo nazi?

@@troycamboOy vey! How dare you cwiticize one of G-d’s chosen people?!

Variety, and a bit quieter - it was competing too much with your voice, and a little too repetitive.

NO background music would be an improvement.

So???

Evidently, nothing other than a semi-retraction from NRP and a half-hearted, lawyered statement from Delta. Ariely went right on making millions and basking in his fame.

Funnily, it's an insurance company that employs actuaries who may be better at practicing statistical analysis than Ariely himself.

Lmao, saw a man drowning and said, "sink." I can respect that.

I was really disgusted that he thought he could and tried to emotionally manipulate a colleague. “Bleeding?” Gross, and insulting her intelligence given its coming from the chair of the psychology department at duke

Lmao five trumpet notes being played over a generic hiphop beat for a TWENTY MINUTE video is a pretty odd choice

100%. Terrible choice. There is so much great music out there that is free to use. Why this??

Ahhhh why did you make me notice it, I'm pissed now

I noticed too

I'm not gonna make it. Too much noise at once. Sensory overload! 🤯

TED is a marketing tool. People who want to market themselves will always be found where they can reach the largest audience and present themselves as whatever they wish to sell.

@@TheJustinJ TED apparently has no control over who they have give talks??? You are delusional.

almost like academics should only be hired by people more qualified than them, and if there's no one who fits that description they should just have tenure. people have decided that tenure is bad, but this is the alternative. there are people who are so deep in various research rabbit holes there's almost nobody who can peer review them anymore. the amount of trust is insane. any kind of bullshit artificial citation or number of papers related pressure on those people and i feel like the trust would disintegrate.

@@ellielikesmathThat is a very dark take. 😞 I don't believe in tenure, though.

Barely anyone of any sophistication hires on count statistics as you suggest. Those are what institutions use to filter the maddening horde down to a manageable set of interview candidates. In the last stage of selection the criteria become: A) Do I wish to work alongside this person for months or years? B) Will this person bring credit or shame to the department, which potentially bleeds into my own future credibility and reputation? C) Will I end up working extra heaps of unpaid overtime to fix some shambles that this person leaves behind? If you do find a department where the churn is so outrageously high that no-one involved feels exposed to these variables in the middle to long term, well, human organizations rise and fall the same as anything else and all you can do is shake your head and say "the Dilbert is strong in this one". Middle management is the most common profession in my extended family, spanning all three sectors (profit, nonprofit, governmental). None of them could possibly take hiring more seriously. They all suffered through bad choices (sometimes their own, but not always), and they have all thrived on good choices. The first rats off a sinking ship are the ones who smell careless HR. Seriously, read: * _Work Rules: Insights from Inside Google_ (2015) * _Creativity, Inc._ (2014) * _Becoming a Manager_ (2003) - _very_ dry, but useful 90% of everything is junk, and that goes double for management literature (where 99% seems to be junk), but these three books were not written by dummies on any dimension. I happen to also like anything by Ricardo Semler (early 2000s), because everything he did was at right angles to established practice. Not very useful for most of us, but catnip for thinking outside the box. If you have a WASPish reverence for the afterlife, you might also like _Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness_ (2002). My father was a minister, but I became an atheist at age 8. Nevertheless, some trace of WASPy reverence remains bred in the bone for me, so I got something out of this book, despite my sidelong sneer at all things metaphysical.

That'll just deepen the corruption, bad take.@@ellielikesmath

Yes. We need to publish more “failures” and stop looking at them as a failure, if that makes sense. Without publishing these, how many others are going to continue to waste their time and funding when they could’ve just read that it already didn’t work? Maybe they could’ve read that finding and attempted a slightly different approach that would’ve produced more significant findings. It’s very frustrating.

@@johnracine4589 Nobody wants to hear this, but that's not gonna happen in a capitalist economy where education is a commodity rather than a necessity. Production for profit kills this notion dead -- publishing failures isn't profitable, and you can only do what's profitable.

It isn’t anti-intellectualism. People like Dan told you that’s the issue. It is anti academia, and it is not irrational.

What's irrational is that trusting "the science™️" has risen exponentially in democrats despite the increasing politicization of science including with affirmative action and of course the replication crisis. More conservative people have an attitude of love the science hate the scientist and a view that much of it is rent seeking which is true

I have a solution for you: don't look for experts in any field. Become an expert, read, research, but i guess you love your idols.

Yep. As universities increasingly become for-profit enterprises and talent sweatshops for corporations to cherrypick from, it's increasingly difficult for people to take both universities and a university education seriously. It's been a long time since American colleges were a home for intellectuals seeking self-improvement and discovery, as opposed to self-aggrandizement and wealth. When I was in uni, almost all my best professors were 60 or over, tedious old men and women who knew not only everything about their specialty, but a great deal about everything else, too. They were full of anecdotes about errors they had made, misinformation their peers had published, and the dumb fads that had swept through academia. I had a professor with a copy of Berkeley's little book praising eugenics, and how it was a shame we were falling behind Germany in this great field in the 1930s. How the US was too conservative and close-mindedly religious to keep up. Almost all of them have been replaced by the newer generation of professors, no longer intellectuals who view their career as a lifetime of sharing discovery with students, but see it only as an opportunity to tell people what to believe.

​@@moenibus​i think they moreso meant that if the data politicians are using is unreliable (or overall unavailable), then its hard to know what to vote for when it comes to policy. ive also encountered this issue, and not everyone has the means nor the knowledge to go out collecting numerical data for every issue theyre concerned with like researchers might, so we have to rely on external sources or information like data from academic professionals.

Jew.

​@@marcanton5357tard

@@marcanton5357 A nazi in this day and age? yikes.

​@@dickurkel6910He could be muslim. I heard they hate jews.

A professor in Florida went to prison for lying about a PhD in Business Administration he never received. What Ariely has done is arguably much more deserving of a prison sentence.

The field was cursed from the get go I swear

Modern day astrology

@@anathema2325 In the past yes. But we have more evidence ever since we could scan the brain and work out the chemical balances etc. Also psychology is why we go: Ah yes, they have schizophrenia. Let us try this dosage of medication to just stabilise their brain. Instead of saying: They're possessed by demons get the priest.

Perhaps the studies that posited that most studies draw incorrect conclusions was fabricated.😀

Maybe an honesty pledge should be there at the top of the page for submitting paper. It will probably lower the % of fraud compared to putting the pledge right below the button.

Same for us, we got wise when dentist commented we were bank rolling his vacation. Confronted the guy and got stammering and sputtering and we left to never return.

The mark of truly a great MAGA supporter

I had a dentist do a root canal on my second visit, even though he said at the end of the first appointment "at least you don't have to do a root canal next time" I didn't realise what was happening until it was too late, and when confronted he said "no, I said at least you will have to do a root canal next time also" which makes absolutely no sense. I think he just forgot what he said last time

@@Myrzghe Oh I don't believe that story at all. Just springing a root canal on you? Okay buddy. Happens all the time in your 'fantasy world' i'm sure.

@@jennyanydots2389 why would I make up something so specific and not really worthy of talking about in other situations? I was supposed to have a regular filling, and did not notice it was not until I had that rubber thing stretched over my face. Assuming a root canal is the same as a "root filling" in my language that is, where they drill down into the roots and fill them? And how can you argue against that after the fact? All the evidence is gone, and if a cavity needs to be drilled or not can vary from dentist to dentist anyway, and I assume it's the same for root stuff, so the xrays will not help you either

This is why I only use overly complicated life hacks, a youtube series to live by.

Yea that seems to be pretty much a consensus. I'll make sure to fix it next time.

@@_quantor perhaps remove it completely. I dislike french horns you should know.

Perhaps the answer to that is: There were two researchers who did a very sloppy job when they faked data like everybody else.

Bro.

maybe they're all faking data.....

I mean, both of them were actually found out - it just took too long.

Jew.

Bro!

For NIH-funded grants, indirect costs (i.e., the portion of grant funds that go to a university) actually aren't that substantial relatively speaking. They basically can't be used for anything other than maintenance, heating, electricity, and some administrative/custodial staff for research facilities. There's also a cap on how much money can be given to fund staffing vs utilities. If NIH indirects went away, most universities would continue to operate, they just wouldn't be able to keep research facilities active and would have to abandon them or sell them off.

I can also assure you that the pressure for researchers to get grants has less to do with indirects that go to the university and more to do with direct funds, which researchers control directly and which are often used to fund the purchase of equipment or to fund staff positions within a lab. Large universities don't really get a cut of these funds in the same way since they are "owned" and managed by the researcher.

As someone who worked in the academic field, I agree there is that issue, but I don't think that is really why this particular case happened. The person was clearly motivated by greed and fame. They probably had no issue getting published or getting money since they were famous. I think the biggest issue with academia is that research is driven by capitalistic interests. I don't know what it was like in the past. But in the last 15 years, there has been a huge incentive to be famous because it opens all sorts of doors money wise, prestige wise, career wise etc. Similarly, having a famous member of staff is very beneficial for the university usually. There isn't a lot of incentive to do correct or accurate science. I mean now you even see famous professors on RU-vid peddling junk supplements and giving bad advice based on single studies using their labs names and their respective Universities turn a blind eye. Meanwhile, the truth-teller professors aren't nearly as famous or attention grabbing as this "one simple trick to maintain your alertness".

Just another reason why education should not be a for profit system

This is for big money --- tens of millions.

Indeed; all of the "area" studies.

I feel like there is a higher proportion there

Any industry with big money and influence as a carrot stick will attract those individuals.

@@raslalique nah it's just business

She got all the attention and he got a pass plus a few million dollars because he's Hebrew.

@@charlesferdinand422*because he’s a man. fixed it for ya

Agreed. As a Duke undergraduate, I regularly see promotional materiel for Ariely’s lectures and presentations (flyers, etc.). A favorite of mine offered a signed copy of one of his books to the first 10 people that arrived. I’m not sure what the attendance was like but I hope it was low lol.

lol right? These are clearly very bright people, you'd think they'd be smart enough to cheat in a less statistically obvious way

Duke should at least pretend to care and stop using Ariely to promote its presence. At this point, at least in the behavioral sciences, seeing Duke attached to a publication would make me skeptical automatically. Sure, there may only be one guy who shows ZERO concern for research integrity (especially around 11:00 ~ through the delusions surrounding his imaginary collaboration with Delta Dental), but Duke seems equally unconcerned. That is a really bad public relationship strategy on Duke’s part.

I am an engineer. I have written award-winning papers, many of them, and I have many patents. It is way more difficult to get away with this kind of fraud in engineering because we have to do real things, not just manipulate people with thoughts and ideas. Psychology is not real science. There are some good scientist in psychology but they are very few. The field is rife with corruption

Bro.

"Interestingly enough, 50 per cent of people with toothaches identify the wrong tooth as the source of the problem!" Prof. Ariely, probably

A 5-second-long loop containing a melodic fragment repeated ad nauseam and then repeated some more for 20 minutes non stop. Not even Beethoven can withstand so much repetition without becoming torture.

have you seen his face? his mannerisms? his awkward ted talk pauses? *surprised pikachu face* you should have smelt the bs the moment he opened his mouth. There have been rumors from day 1.

​@@craftsmanceramics8653I thought that was coz of the burn 😅

​@craftsmanceramics8653 hindsight is nice isn't it buddy

@@nunyabiznes33 it was a joke; you only burn yourself that bad by lying to yourself first!

@NoSaysJo highsight on what buddy? He's been questionable for the last decade in the field; its only becoming common knowledge to the lay person because of the lawsuit. It's not highsight, you're just not very bright or informed.

Maybe he did...

⁠​⁠@@jumpinjohnnyrussconsidering what happened I doubt it

Of course, if he did that he might be an actual scientist.

only in the hard sciences.

Same reason thieves don't leave their fingerprints everywhere

I just finished my first stats class and when he said that I was like "Duh. You take out the outliers."

thats such a good way to summarize it lmao

@@SnarkTheMagicDragon was thinking that the whole time, my high school level of psychology and statistics education taught me enough about removing data points above/below a certain threshold... and that should be even more important when a test subject is literally inebriated

wouldn’t the person being drunk already disqualify them as a valid data point? why even accept their participation if you could tell they were under the influence?

@@bones4786 The problem isn't removing invalid data (in this case a drunk subject). The problem is the process by which he arrived at the idea of removing that subject, and the potential bias it introduced into the results. If you start with the rule "exclude inebriated subjects" and applied it to the whole sample, that would be fine. Ariely himself acknowledges that they only realised that the subject was inebriated because he was a massive outlier that appeared to contradict their hypothesis. Hence, if there were inebriated (or otherwise incapacitated) subjects in the other group, this decision process ("investigate the outliers which contradict your hypothesis, exclude them if you find a good reason to") would not have caught them; thus it would introduce bias into the results and falsely reinforce the hypothesis he was supposed to be investigating.

You ought to ask for repentance. Break the continuous curse of falling for charlatans. #LessLsPlease

It's better to borrow from the library this way you know when hearing how fraudently these experts are you know have save your money. When I heard his interpretation on Elizabeth Holmes, I thought he was phoney. It amazing how some people can hook people into their net. Sounds like he makes up a lot of stories as he goes along. Comic version

From reading his books you literally get instructions on how to manipulate people in very sophisticated ways. So I'd not be surprised about his "interpretations" of Holmes.

You have to realize, he was taking half baked economic theories and creating anecdotal evidence supporting that they were true after all. (Irrationality, etc). Meanwhile, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hyak, and others are discounted as frauds. Even though their contributions build on Adam Smiths foundation and can be seen as true by any rational or observant person.

But that's always been an understood point.

@@TheJhtlag there's a difference between it being understood and applied though. It's also understood you shouldn't falsify research

Bro. 😔

Here is my theory. Take almost any self help book. Really put your all into it. Take all the advice. Do it right. And your life will be helped. Almost like the source doesn’t actually matter. Which is why you’ve seen results from using dubious if not outright fake studies

@@jamesbizs Bro?

People misunderstand peer review. I'm an academic in math. We don't spend much time on peer-review. There is no reward for doing it well, and actually doing it to the point where you are 100% of the correctness of the paper is extremely, extremely time consuming. We need to spend that time and energy on our own research. Besides that, you can always find a journal that will accept your work, even if it's literally and factually wrong, it just won't be one of the top ones...but the public and the government don't know which ones are the respected journals. Checking work is a research-level task in itself. In math, to truly check a paper and be willing to bet my life it's correct would take about a month of full-time study. I can't afford to lose that time; I'd lose my career. It's publish-or-perish: if I don't spend that time coming up with enough original papers of my own, I won't keep my job. The public has way too much faith in science. An enormous portion of our peer-reviewed work is wrong, I read wrong papers all the time. The best of us check the stuff as we use it in our own work, that's the real way we decide correctness. So, the best workers in the field sort of collectively know which papers are the "real" ones...but that's insider knowledge. Outsiders don't even know which researchers to ask, and you definitely can't go by things like university name since as you can see in this video, it's easy to game the system to promote your career. The real folks can sometimes be at weird, small institutions. The incentive system is very much broken. The public has lost a lot of trust in science, and it's for good reason. I don't take "peer-reviewed study" to mean much today, because I know in math that could mean anything from "excellent to work" to "literally and objectively filled with contradictions".

I mostly agree however I do have a bone to pick about the "The public has way too much faith in science" standpoint seeing as how your work that you analyze is primarily in mathematics. Academic mathematics from my understanding is primarily logical proofs and theoretical maths. No paper will likely be published that changes the way we fundamentally do addition. As a student attending a research university which specializes in Psychology, I know that a lot of skepticism in the field is thrown at new research that shows significant deltas with minimal tinkering of independent variables. We are taught to be skeptical by nature, which is part of the scientific method. Re-testing papers is arguably the best way to prove their validity and robustness, however, research can sometimes (as you surely know) be tedious, time-consuming, and aggravating if you want to do it well, so some people won't go through the robust process of finding more than one study that has tested the same concept. I would say such problems don't imply that the public has too much faith in science, but has too much faith in the interpreters of science (journalists) who will take a concept that needs significant retesting and expansion and say things like "Drinking a glass of wine a day helps your health!" when it isn't the wine, but a third variable such as socialization which they would have known if they saw it was a correlational study. Overall I agree, I just figured I'd give my two cents @@geometerfpv2804

@@geometerfpv2804It doesn't sound like anything's wrong with science, it sounds like the kpis and incentives of university academics are broken, and those academics arent't doing science, i.e. checking results, as you've said. Don't blame on science what can be explained by money and org charts.

@geometerfpv2804 so there needs to be a paid peer review committee? A group of highly esteemed and honest academics that gets paid to test other people's work. I'm not sure what that looks like whether it would be democratic or assigned but it baffles me that there's noone checking anyone's findings properly. This issue comes up time and time again

@@geometerfpv2804Are you including me in the group of “people that don’t understand peer review?” I don’t know how you review in math, but I routinely review for top journals. In the recent years, the general trend is that we are not to weight the “potential interest” or “appeal to the readership” and more on integrity. Yes, I do spend hours, often days, closely examine every aspect of what is being reported. Also, at least in my field, papers submitted by prolific scholars are handled differently by the editors. They aren’t sent to “everyday” reviewers and, instead, they often go through opaque procedures which may or may not involve unethical practices. I have been part of it-in fact (e.g., email from the senior editor saying, “This is a paper we’d very much publish urgently. Can you review quickly?”-which is essentially saying, “no matter what you say, it’ll be published one way or another”).

Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be repeated only 3 times and still work musically. You will be hard pressed to find something -- anything -- in classical music repeated 3 times without variation. I have listened to classical music for 37 years, I know a vast repertoire, but I cannot think of a single example of anything repeated 3 times. Rossini has a thing where he states the same phrase 3 times, but the whole thing is a crescendo, and the phrase is much longer than the 5-second loop here. The sense that music can be repeated comes from growing up on games, where the amount of music is always inappropriate compared to playing time. If you think music can be looped you are already wrong. "Don't repeat yourself" is taught by all composition teachers in all eras.