[HN Gopher] Hack Your Way to Scientific Glory (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
Hack Your Way to Scientific Glory (2016)
Author : wjb3
Score : 45 points
Date : 2024-06-28 23:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (projects.fivethirtyeight.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (projects.fivethirtyeight.com)
| user_7832 wrote:
| For anyone wondering about the title, it's about p-hacking -
| picking and choosing variables to suit your objectives. Highly
| recommend trying the mini-game, it's fun!
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| They say a photo is worth a thousand words, and here, this demo
| is as convincing as a lot of the spilt ink regarding the
| replication crisis and social psychology. As someone who pursuing
| a PhD in the social sciences... This could be a useful tool for
| seniors majoring in the social sciences / who are taking stats
| classes.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Sigh. P hacking has long been a meme. Nicholas Cage and shark
| attacks for example. P values are useful though if the results
| seem at least plausible or can be explained by some underlying
| process. Like a low p value between calorie restriction and
| weight loss.
| caddemon wrote:
| Shark attacks isn't really p-hacking though, that's about
| misinterpreting/misrepresenting a real correlation. P-hacking
| is finding a fake correlation due to chance because you tested
| a lot of different things in a smallish dataset, and then
| reporting that correlation as meaningful without mentioning
| your negative results or properly explaining your entire
| process.
| tbenst wrote:
| I know the exercise was to p-hack, but instead I decided to one-
| shot my attempt at the most reasonable model from first
| principals:
|
| - given that we are looking at a national scale, use only
| national politicians
|
| - use the components from Macroeconomics 101: exclude inflation
| as that's on the Fed, exclude stocks as too conflated with FX and
| international investing alternatives
|
| - don't needlessly withhold data
|
| Tried one hypothesis, so p-value of 0.04 is accurate. Still OK to
| explore if you Bonferroni correct the p-Val afterwards
| wjb3 wrote:
| An excellent demonstration of how easy it is to manipulate data
| to find significant results - it brings to light (again) the
| pervasive issue of data dredging in research, where researchers,
| intentionally or unintentionally, keep testing hypotheses until
| they find something publishable, thereby undermining the
| integrity of scientific findings and highlighting the importance
| of preregistration and replication studies.
|
| How can we shift the academic incentives away from "publish or
| perish" toward promoting transparency and rigorous methodology in
| research? Are any of the current attempts moving the needle?
| jarsdel wrote:
| Current attempts showing promise include initiatives like the
| Center for Open Science and journals such as eLife and PLOS ONE
| that emphasize methodological rigor over impact factor.
| Additionally, policies from organizations like the National
| Institutes of Health (NIH) mandating data sharing plans are
| gradually moving the needle toward these goals.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-30 23:02 UTC)