Go to https://ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Save 40% for unlimited access to the Vantage Plan through my link this month only.
Data Colada: https://datacolada.org/118
My Website: petejudo.com
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petejudoofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
Good tools I actually use:
Shortform: https://www.Shortform.com/pete
Ground News: https://ground.news/Pete
38 Comments
Go to https://ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Save 40% for unlimited access to the Vantage Plan through my link this month only.
I am still grappling with the reliability of the Impurity scale or was it just a set of questions asking how participants felt? It makes sense though that those networking out of a sense of duty or work obligation would feel less "impure" than those looking to further career interests. They could have salvaged the situation if they had only revised the study to a mixed methods, explained the qualitative responses with proper methods, analyzed the quantitative survey results and then led with a discussion. @PeteJudo1, do you think at any point you would create videos on statistics? But researchers are under tremendous pressure to churn out papers and get funding. We all need to slow down and be a lot more thorough or it'll be research for research's sake.
i dont know anything about what networking is or means in this context, can someone clearify please? ty in advance
People on the right make up most of the climate denial demographic. They grab on to any evidence that supports the belief that science is corrupted/corruptable.
See guilty… but still has a great rack…
Harvard and data colada should countersue
☕️☕️🤣
Harvard is now totally corrupt because the woke policies have destroyed the expected learning of the diverse student body. No one graduates with any skills other than wandering the streets with placards while screaming.
Crazy that the folks at Data Colada put more work into this study than Gino et al.
Will frauds like this be forced to repay the money spent on their worthless, tainted research?
They're actually called Data Colada? I thought that was just your accent and they were called Data Collider. I'm extra stupid lol.
Right wing dislike Harvard??? How about Left wing supports liars and cheats . I have high regard for Harvard especially in the hard sciences like Chemistry. But I don't like fake data and cheating.
It was pseudoscience from the start. These people daydream about human nature based on their own personalities because they assume everyone is a schemer like them, then devise rigged experiments to prove it and STILL need to fake their data.
Different people are different. Some people are good networkers, some are bad at it, and some are schemers who give networking a bad name. You can teach people how to be better at networking but it’s about skills and practice; not about making people think the right thoughts beforehand.
And honestly, if you even think about meeting colleagues as networking then you’re probably one of the bad ones. The fact that these researchers wanted to research networking suggests that they’re schemey networkers who don’t feel bad about it and are trying to justify their scheminess.
Even without cheating, this is some kindergarten level of “science”, unbelievable that this is what’s going on in Ivy League Unis!
If I were in Gino's shoes (which I never will be, because I'm neither in psychology nor a cheat) I would be less embarrassed about being caught cheating than I would be about cheating so egregiously incompetently.
PhD people who do not even know how they cheat
I would like to see you make videos like this, videos that summarize the data colada blog posts — not just behavioral science ones, all of the blog posts. Also, I do use ground news now from an earlier recommendation from your channel, it's ok, I do like seeing the bias, but the interface is so "busy" that it's not super useful as an actual news source, I usually go to it from other news source I use to check the bias
Seem like her research is finally getting peer reviewed:)
Think about how morally bankrupt she would have to be to try to destroy the lives of the data colada folks when she KNOWS they are right…
Its insane to me how sloppy the fakery was. I teach university math, and this is the kind of thing dumb undergrads think they can slip by us…says a lot about the harvard culture. I have always thought those positions are more about politics and who you know.
Perhaps, the universities should change their focus from research to teaching. Some departments will get lots of work from industry, some, not so much. Individual lecturers in all topics might be able to some interesting work on the side and, perhaps, write interesting blogs or books or do lecture tours.
As I understand, academics are paid on the basis of their published research and this is incentivising fraud.
I'm sorry, but even without the cheating and fraud, this study is so stupid and I'm a little bit alarmed that this is what they're spending god knows how much money on at Harvard. The fact that this study was conducted, approved, and published in the first place suggests massive, foundational issues. Even if this study had been 100% real, unmodified data, it would still be worthless, utterly useless garbage that she, her colleagues, Harvard, and the journal it was published in should be humiliated for wasting perfectly good paper and everybody's time conducting and putting out this trash. This journal could save a lot of resources by just publishing horoscopes and they would be just as useful and less damaging than fraudulent data.
DEI exemplar.
This entire study was so poorly designed from the beginning it almost doesn’t matter if the data is botched. They threw out at least half of the collected data (the words), and gave an ambiguous meaningless rating system to the participants that is wide open for misinterpretation by anybody. The participants should have been asked true false questions regarding their feelings or something more similar to that.
is anyone really surprised that DEI academics are imperfect, even fraudulent? the general public is NOT, because we see bad leadership by DEI women in the corporate world every day
I pass on any study with:
"Rate yourself on an arbitrary (ordinal) scale"
Not worth my time.
Dirty cops… usually mean dirty commanders. Dirty lying Phd candidates? Wonder what that means….
One can always sue, apparently.
She sees herself as innocent.
Ground News puts "state affiliate" tags on russian state media but not on chinese state media
Psychology is a scam.
Let's suppose this study is "legit." Can someone please explain to me why this is useful?
Color me biased as I don't have a Ph.D. in "beesness." Who funded this research, and what is their rationale behind this? Did Meta fund this study? Instagram? LinkedIn? ByteDance TikTok? The CCP? IRGC?
Umm, perhaps the real truth is her doggo ate the data.
Just wondering…
You can also make the real data work with the study? It makes sense that someone trying to fulfill responsibilities and such wouldn't understand networking as morally impure, as it could just be conceptualized as necessary for the duties they have. Versus people focused on achieving something like a promotion might feel more like they are acting or manipulating. Its not as though the study was ruined or anything, so why didn’t the authors just use the actual conclusions of the experiment?
Ever since I was introduced to qualitative academic research based on Likert scales I always thought “this shit is a pseudo science made to reinforce the researchers biases”.
This is an extreme example of someone doing that blatantly but even the ones trying to do it properly… I don’t believe there is anything scientific about these research methodologies, specially in fields related to sociology os most of the social sciences.
I stopped listening to you when you assumed that the story was picked up more by right leaning media than left because they hate Harvard. You are wrong. The left leaning media ignored the story for their usual biased reporting reasons. Since you are obviously a lefty yourself, you have zero value to me.
Fraud at Harvard? No surprises😂
She's a nasty piece of work.
Her books front page : Rebel Talent, Why it pays to break rules at work and life.
Bunch of amateurs – can't even fake data properly.