Tap to unmute

Academia is BROKEN! - Harvard Fake Data Scandal Explained

  Рет қаралды 2,002,787

Pete Judo

Pete Judo

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 11 000
@thewolf5459
@thewolf5459 Жыл бұрын
Having published in a handful of scientific/academic journals, I have not once been asked for actual deidentified data. The expectation is that researchers conduct themselves with honesty and integrity, but obviously that isn't universally practiced.
@PeteJudo1
@PeteJudo1 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for commenting this. Anyone asking how peer-review didn’t catch this. 👆
@darby5987
@darby5987 Жыл бұрын
@@PeteJudo1 I'm the "anyone asking" and thewolf's post makes my point. In general the peer review system is dead. The world of "Doveryai, no proveryai", trust but verify (Suzanne Massie), has parted company with some sectors of the scientific community. And we wonder why there are people who live by another mantra, "There's a sucker born every minute." (P.T. Barnum) Not properly peer reviewing scientific proffers has cost people their lives and it is worth more than an "anyone asking how peer review didn't catch this" snark.
@captivatingcurios
@captivatingcurios Жыл бұрын
Hopping here to mention that Dan Ariely is also considered to have falsified data, it's definitely not just Francesca Gino
@user-zq4fv8sj6v
@user-zq4fv8sj6v Жыл бұрын
@@PeteJudo1After monitoring the academic caliber of Harvard’s products/graduates (aka degree ‘recipients’, NOT earners) vs their ability to perform, I’m not in the least surprised!! Without excoriating all of them, I’ve long become weary of encountering them directly and recently constantly watching their mendacious behavior headlining the news for epic failures. Harvard used to represent status, respectability and imminence. The past 30 years have certainly changed my perception of exceptionalism. Narcissism and absolutism pervade their credentials so I’m much less apt to blindly trust. Worse they’ve selectively had an epiphany recently regarding their own ROOTS in slavery by their founders while endlessly castigating anyone else for lesser acts. I’ll send the link, info on this but KZbin chooses to block these topics. It’s a sad fact that an Ivy degree doesn’t certify anything. Indeed it may be something to avoid like the monumental damage inflicted by Jeffrey Skilling, Rajat Gupta, Elizabeth Holmes, Alissa Heinerscheid, etc. Higher Education itself isn’t impressive on the whole either. Look at all of the graduates collectively who have been DEMANDING their SLD be mystically ERASED. Their degree obviously isn’t paying off, TOO many haven’t found work and began boomeranging back home around 2008 which has become ‘normalized’. It’s a pathetic narrative that these grads have formulated and cleave to.
@alexanderwhite298
@alexanderwhite298 Жыл бұрын
@@PeteJudo1 you went very fast and I was having a hard time keeping up. I did catch on the third study that you and the vigil's are saying it is categorized by the last collum when it shows it's categorized by the first as what is in sequence.
@GiovannaIwishyou
@GiovannaIwishyou Жыл бұрын
Maybe she wouldn't fake the data if there was a pledge of honesty at the begining of her paper.
@PeteJudo1
@PeteJudo1 Жыл бұрын
😂😂
@numanbaran8607
@numanbaran8607 Жыл бұрын
LOL
@user-uskxnfiw729
@user-uskxnfiw729 Жыл бұрын
Lol
@skipfred
@skipfred Жыл бұрын
Lmao
@thunderb00m
@thunderb00m Жыл бұрын
Nah shes more creative than that
@SnapScienceOfficial
@SnapScienceOfficial Жыл бұрын
The fact that this was only caught because she was so terrible at faking the data really raises eyebrows. How much data is faked by competent fraudsters?
@AntonioNoack
@AntonioNoack Жыл бұрын
Probably at least 10x more, I'd say.
@watsonwrote
@watsonwrote Жыл бұрын
There are entire fields of "study" built on extremely dubious research. 10 years ago in my first Psych class the professor told us that most psychology studies cannot be reproduced and that a lot of data is faked. In a decade, nothing has changed. It's no wonder mental health is poor for so many people when the entire field of study is polluted with bad data and studies that aren't scientifically sound. ( Not to single out Psychology -- Quantum Physics is another field with a lot of people wasting their time )
@Anankin12
@Anankin12 Жыл бұрын
Or, how did she become professor with an understanding of statistics and datasets so limited they can't even cheat properly?
@gorgit
@gorgit Жыл бұрын
​@@Anankin12she probably was really good at it. But with time she just didnt think about the consequences of cheating, shed done it for years now. So she just got sloppy
@Anankin12
@Anankin12 Жыл бұрын
@@gorgit he made a list of very obvious suspicious things that would have been very easy to fix. Going back for years.
@darrenmiliband4807
@darrenmiliband4807 Жыл бұрын
I used to work in a lab, and after putting my blood and my sweat into research, I generated excellent data. One day the professor showed up and claimed that he needed to get a patent for his company and with my work but without my name being acknowledged and asked for my work. Immediately after he received the work, he told me that he would give me another project to work on as he wanted to show investors that he was the one who generated the data in order to secure more funding. when I protested his decision, he fired me and stole my notebook. As an international student, I had no way of getting compensated and was left in limbo. People like these should be removed from academia!
@belenaguilar1348
@belenaguilar1348 Жыл бұрын
I believe you. This happens a lot to international students. The professors take advantage
@barryffay
@barryffay Жыл бұрын
You should have kicked his ass!
@niamcd6604
@niamcd6604 Жыл бұрын
Good luck. The Entire academia is this.
@kwestwick6065
@kwestwick6065 Жыл бұрын
🙁 thats awful . depending on how long ago that was, a (international?) attorney might be able to help you with that.
@vazanere
@vazanere Жыл бұрын
I'm sure you learned a tough lesson. Always question everything.
@samuelmingo5090
@samuelmingo5090 Жыл бұрын
I was doing a meta-analysis once for a bio-medical project. I came across a research paper that I was pulling data from. The papers contents read good and showed a positive correlation in the outcomes of the intervention. I went to looking at the tables to pull the hard data and I just couldn't make sense of what I was reading. It felt very off. I'm not great at understanding the deep depths of statistics, so I took that paper to a professor of statistics, who had to take a moment after looking at the tables. As it turned out, the tables had been carefully put together to obscure that there wasn't much of a correlation at all. The authors didn't blatantly lie in the paper, but the text implied one thing, while the tables obscured the truth of another thing. It literally took a PhD in statistics to see what they were doing.
@winsenken
@winsenken 5 ай бұрын
This is very common where people only show desired data they can explain.
@someguywithcancer1595
@someguywithcancer1595 3 ай бұрын
When I took Business Statistics we used a book “How to Lie With Statistics” it was a great resource for learning how to spot things like this. Also I can never watch commercials the same way again.
@christianlibertarian5488
@christianlibertarian5488 2 ай бұрын
I generally hate meta-analyses, as they combine dis-similar data. But you have pointed out one good aspect of them, in that they at least do a review of other data.
@luffyluck
@luffyluck 14 күн бұрын
There is a paper out there showing that a large chunk of papers use wrong statistics for their study. Mostly stats for normal distributions applied on data that don't follow normal distributions, for data with small sample size....
@GhostOfSnuffles
@GhostOfSnuffles Жыл бұрын
The correlation between ethics professors and unethical behavior is staggering.
@officinabotanicahc494
@officinabotanicahc494 Жыл бұрын
The correlation between professors and unethical behaviour is staggering, I would say.
@Ghost1170
@Ghost1170 Жыл бұрын
Same with some therapists and psychologists. Some people take those positions to control people or make themselves feel better that they have better lives and manipulate others. But also remember, there are honest men and women that want and try to help. Just remember shitty people should not be treated the same as those really trying
@franki1990
@franki1990 Жыл бұрын
That's behavioral psychology in a nutshell.
@antaresmaelstrom5365
@antaresmaelstrom5365 Жыл бұрын
Now we need to run a study to see if that correlation is actually a causation.
@tylermassey5431
@tylermassey5431 Жыл бұрын
I mean, they study ethics. That clearly implies that they don't have much innate knowledge on the subject.
@nukestrom5719
@nukestrom5719 Жыл бұрын
Academia is broken because of the behavior of journals. Decades ago, negative results were publishable as it helped fellow researchers not to follow the same path or learn what doesn't work, but nowadays they are thrown out by journals because journals demand only positive results. So, this practice of manipulation is becoming increasingly common.
@pranavdeshpande4942
@pranavdeshpande4942 Жыл бұрын
Agreed, it isn't really research if you know what you are doing, researchers should be allowed to fail.
@silvertube52
@silvertube52 Жыл бұрын
The pressure in psychology to produce novel results, with no resources other than access to some undergraduate subjects, has been forcing researchers to p-hack for at least 60-70 years. It was a huge problem when I was getting my doctorate in social psychology 40 years ago. It isn't just the journals, its the whole system. Only substantive changes in academia will fix this. Journals publishing negative results will help but that's not enough, the pressure will still exist to generate novel findings from quick studies with zero funding. In psychology, if you can't get multiple quick publications of unusual results, you don't have a career. Some possible solutions are pre-registering hypotheses and methods before the work is initiated, with the publication of results assured. Another idea is making replication part of the standard graduate school requirements, like a second year project, with journals specifically publishing replications i.e. The Journal of Psychological Research Replication.
@velociraptorgod110
@velociraptorgod110 Жыл бұрын
It's more complicated. negative findings may result in spam. Here is a video, why particle physics has a similar problem: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqaXnntpfdKqaNE
@hotcoffee1068
@hotcoffee1068 Жыл бұрын
Absolutely right, I tried duplicate the research on so many journals, only 20% that had the same results. I don't know what to believe anymore.
@maribb21
@maribb21 Жыл бұрын
Journals don't accept/reject papers. Scientists acting like peer-reviewers do. We need to change the culture in Science to accept again interesting negative results
@joechip1232
@joechip1232 Жыл бұрын
The researchers who challenged her findings aren't vigilantes, they're professors at universities. Challenging your colleagues's work is meant to be part of the job. It's kind of like calling the SIU vigilantes.
@terryjones573
@terryjones573 Жыл бұрын
I found that word choice really odd, too.
@jvcyt298
@jvcyt298 Жыл бұрын
Peer review is what separates scientists from charlatans.
@mojrimibnharb4584
@mojrimibnharb4584 Жыл бұрын
Eh... he's being pithy.
@RazorRamonMachismo
@RazorRamonMachismo Жыл бұрын
yeah man they be like batman and batverse or some shieeeeeeeet
@daniellehowell4339
@daniellehowell4339 Жыл бұрын
Too bad there's no money in replication
@woodificould
@woodificould Жыл бұрын
One of the reasons I dropped out of my PhD program. The "publish or perish" motto has legitimately ruined academia
@Matthy5k
@Matthy5k Жыл бұрын
What is shocking to me is how unsophisticated the fake data is.
@storykli5137
@storykli5137 Жыл бұрын
Lying is hard work
@Horzinicla
@Horzinicla Жыл бұрын
You're right, their mistakes could've been easily avoidable. Which makes you think of how much data out there is faked in a way which cannot be discovered, full ideologies would be broken if that's the case
@Adriana-eu6ty
@Adriana-eu6ty Жыл бұрын
Just like covid data
@oosmanbeekawoo
@oosmanbeekawoo Жыл бұрын
@@storykli5137 Too hard for Harvard professors apparently!
@srenjensen2836
@srenjensen2836 Жыл бұрын
They probably never thought they would be asked for the data.
@WillyOrca
@WillyOrca Жыл бұрын
She should just rush and publish a paper titled "How reliable are Academic Studies? Determining the likihood of falsified data passing peer review."
@sparklinglemon-limepop8442
@sparklinglemon-limepop8442 Жыл бұрын
That would’ve been an amazing move 😂😂
@jonsouth1545
@jonsouth1545 Жыл бұрын
That would be a 3D chess move
@DFragXD
@DFragXD Жыл бұрын
Exactly what I scrolled down to say if someone else already hadn't.
@dainiusjakubauskas2083
@dainiusjakubauskas2083 Жыл бұрын
There are tons of this kind already though
@astral6749
@astral6749 Жыл бұрын
Schrodinger's paper
@Sparts17
@Sparts17 Жыл бұрын
Man, it’s almost like she was given an incentive from an invested source to lie about her performance. Someone should do a study about that.
@BMB57
@BMB57 Жыл бұрын
Theyll go missing or stop halfway through for "unknown reasons"
@haramsaddam238
@haramsaddam238 Жыл бұрын
There’s a term for it that’s been around for ages. It’s called bribing
@TomHuckACAB
@TomHuckACAB Жыл бұрын
Society is a brothel. - Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata
@yccmzimmy
@yccmzimmy Жыл бұрын
Why not her?!? 😜
@sharedknowledge6640
@sharedknowledge6640 Жыл бұрын
There’s a famous saying: You get what you incent. And it often holds true. She’s an obvious fraud who has harmed the industry for perceived personal gain.
@grig8310
@grig8310 Жыл бұрын
The most surprising thing about this is how bad they are at faking their results
@douginorlando6260
@douginorlando6260 Жыл бұрын
One correction … this proves getting CAUGHT being a fraud is unacceptable in the profession BUT being a fraud is how to rise to the top in the profession
@nickg1895
@nickg1895 Жыл бұрын
It's like politics
@Smytjf11
@Smytjf11 Жыл бұрын
​@@nickg1895way too much like politics
@Tiago_R_Ribeiro
@Tiago_R_Ribeiro Жыл бұрын
Ok. Let's do a paper about this. I will properly fake the data, in case the hypothesis is nkt true 😋
@joevenuti1201
@joevenuti1201 Жыл бұрын
You are SOOOOO right! Best example of this are fraudulent climate "scientists" like michael mann.
@jaredwilliams8621
@jaredwilliams8621 Жыл бұрын
​@@Tiago_R_RibeiroJust don't forget to re-sort the spreadsheet when you are done!
@catriona_drummond
@catriona_drummond Жыл бұрын
She wrote a book that is literally called: "Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life." I mean seriously, how much more transparent do you expect her to be? She literally advises people to break the rules to advance their career. Why would she not take her own advice?
@superscatboy
@superscatboy Жыл бұрын
😂👌
@paperxplane1
@paperxplane1 Жыл бұрын
can't be angry with her; she wrote a manifesto on how she operates
@foxinbox8489
@foxinbox8489 Жыл бұрын
Isn't really that bad of an advice. Following all the rules to the last letter is really bad, and can even harm the company (aka Italian strike. Edit: also known as work-to-rule or slowdown)
@BigHenFor
@BigHenFor Жыл бұрын
Have you read "Corruptible: who gets power and how it changes us" by Brian Klass? You should because, it's like a survey of the scientific research on Power, and it's not unknown for ambition to trump professional ethics in pursuit of status and power. And the culture in academia can foster that urge, because it's "publish or die.c And no journal is interested in negative results. They're on the look out for attention grabbing articles that might jump the gap to the mainstream. And Gino obligingly supplied results that fit the bill. BTW, Klass mentions very early on a case study on a former career financial criminal, who cites his ability to learn new ways to steal money throughout his career as the foundation of his former success. Klass argues that one of the key characteristics of the powerful is that they are lifetime learners. And this criminal at his height was making 6-figure sums, when a million was a lot of money. So, the incentives are powerful, esoecially when your disciolibe is struving to align itself with government. For example, the former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, installed a Behavioural Science unit in his government called the Nudge Unit, because the academics working in it promised to be able to use their expertise to shape policy and communication in order to persuade or nudge the general public to behave in ways that fulfilled policy goals... Creepy isn't it? But, just search here on KZbin, abd you will find behavioural scientists pushing that narrative. For myself, especially after watching Succession, and reading sime old favourites like "The Dictator’s Handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith (an updated 2nd editon was published last year), I'm inclined to be more sceptical and cautious of such endeavours. Especially after how his administration ended, and what followed. Those who wield power - even thev good ones - often have a complex relationship with ethics and morals. Tge problem is, whilst they may have talents in specific domains, and they acquire power because of that, they may be no more immune to folly than any one else other domains. And when the powerful succumb to their flaws, the result can be anything from significant to catastrophic. But read both these books, and I'd read Corruptible before The Dictator's Handbook, because the former is slightly more theoretical and broader in its scope, than the latter, which focuses purely on the politics. Corruptible explains why as a species our relationship with power can tend to be challenging. Happy reading!
@yoeyyoey8937
@yoeyyoey8937 Жыл бұрын
That’s a slap to the face to any student dreaming of entering academia. Basically confirms all my suspicions that it’s not about who is doing the best work or knows what’s happening, but the people who can trick others into making it look that way (especially investors/funders and school heads)
@chris92S
@chris92S Жыл бұрын
More people should consider that finding out that your hypothesis didn't pan out is a good thing too. You still made progress by figuring out which route you should avoid taking.
@affectojfgidi1246
@affectojfgidi1246 10 ай бұрын
Absolutely agree
@BobfromSydney
@BobfromSydney Жыл бұрын
On the other hand there are people who have worked really hard on their research and have had to resubmit papers to one journal after another to try and get published because journals just don't care about negative results. It's unethical cheaters like these that are actually driving good honest research OUT of the top journals. No sympathy here.
@galois6569
@galois6569 Жыл бұрын
I think it is the system that is problem here. The cheaters are more of a symptom. Even if no one cheated, the bias towards surprising results over repeated studies would still result in most of new research being wrong.
@nolanalexander8696
@nolanalexander8696 Жыл бұрын
I think its also related to the status of researcher being from "elite" universities. This happened in both sides. I imagine if the critics of Gino did not came from U. of Penn or Yale, would someone listen to them? This "elite" uni special treatment perhaps what softens the editorial work on them. I cannot blame the reviewers too, some reviewer worked unpaid for hours, and perhaps Gino's reviewer only able to review the logical sequence of the paper, the accuracy of representation (not the validity), and since the diagram looks made sense, they did not pay enough attention to them.
@tribalypredisposed
@tribalypredisposed Жыл бұрын
In academia everyone knows that you need strong positive results to get published and you need to get published to not end up out of academia or in a job as an adjunct making minimum wage. The people who succeed then are either excessively lucky to keep getting great positive results, or they are cheaters. As someone specializing in dishonesty, this professor must have been well aware of the dominance of cheaters in her discipline, and she made a pretty easy choice to not buck the trend and have a successful career.
@paulallenscards
@paulallenscards Жыл бұрын
@@galois6569es but the fact that only studies with extreme/shocking results get published is ubiquitous among researchers IS the driving factor for lies and deception
@bilbo_gamers6417
@bilbo_gamers6417 Жыл бұрын
i feel like publishing negative results should be just as important as positive ones. you need to know what doesn't work, not just what works, right?
@MeMe-lx2jw
@MeMe-lx2jw Жыл бұрын
I ended up realizing my dream of working in academia and I cannot tell you how disappointed I was. The pursuit of knowledge and truth are rare now. It's all "publish or perish," so "researchers" make up stuff or they are totally biased and pick and choose data. It's a joke. Those of us who value knowledge and truth are swiftly bullied out of our positions.
@falconeshield
@falconeshield Жыл бұрын
I blame the 'vaccines causes autism' guy. It all started with him.
@GoofierClock
@GoofierClock Жыл бұрын
​@@falconeshield I think it started way before that.
@Silverfire1999
@Silverfire1999 Жыл бұрын
How about it has always been like that and you have to find the strengt not to be bullied out?
@starseedlightworker6539
@starseedlightworker6539 Жыл бұрын
@@falconeshield They always lie on safety or efficacy, HPV Vaccine actually never have been proven to prevent cancer, and sadly it actually causes it.
@Josh.Stovall
@Josh.Stovall Жыл бұрын
Don't underestimate the power of wokeness. Personal bias has a significant impact in transparency on research.
@maxinatorborderls
@maxinatorborderls Жыл бұрын
The most striking thing about this, is how badly the data was manipulated. Imagine how much research is manipulated and goes unnoticed.
@pcdispatch
@pcdispatch Жыл бұрын
Researchers need to book results after a while or they lose their financial backing.
@Duke00x
@Duke00x Жыл бұрын
At least there is data to manipulate. I have seen meny examples of papers using no data at all. Only using references to sources that don't use data themselves (the source only uses their own hypothesis/opinion and have no source data).
@dxfvgyhjh
@dxfvgyhjh Жыл бұрын
between 2 and 14%
@sarowie
@sarowie Жыл бұрын
@@Duke00x even a meta study on real studies dies under publication bias. Studies that show are correlation are published. Null-Result studies remain unpublished and their raw data lost for ever.
@oneproudbrowncoat
@oneproudbrowncoat Жыл бұрын
Uh, all of it, really.
@jabir5768
@jabir5768 Жыл бұрын
It's actually hilarious that all of these papers are about honesty
@namastewellness
@namastewellness 6 күн бұрын
The devil’s favorite place to hide is at church.
@cassif19
@cassif19 Жыл бұрын
Their cheating technique was so lazy 🙄. Clearly cheaters don't necessarily have increased creativity
@anttiasikainen3124
@anttiasikainen3124 Жыл бұрын
The really scary thought here is that many other cheaters might not be nearly as lazy
@richardbloemenkamp8532
@richardbloemenkamp8532 Жыл бұрын
@@anttiasikainen3124 Why is this scary? Everybody knows that you shouldn't take this kind of research serious. For example if you want to know how potential customers react to a new feature in your product, then you do a study yourself because you know that if you consult the research papers you will not get any truth. You will get what suited the researchers best. If you ask a company to do it for you then the company will look at your behavior to estimate the results that best suit you and they will make a study up to confirm what you want to hear, because else you will not hire them in the future again.
@superneenjaa718
@superneenjaa718 Жыл бұрын
'u2063'
@craigtobias1404
@craigtobias1404 Жыл бұрын
Haha, great point
@exosproudmamabear558
@exosproudmamabear558 Жыл бұрын
Yeah if you gonna cheat do it properly at least. Your whole career depends on this, afterall
@damonthompson3811
@damonthompson3811 Жыл бұрын
How many honest genius scientists are underemployed to make room for con artists? This hurts our society.
@IndigoIndustrial
@IndigoIndustrial Жыл бұрын
This so true.
@futurethinking
@futurethinking Жыл бұрын
Well, ethical scientists don't get employment in Academia anymore since the change to publish or perish. You are at a disadvantage from the beginning, during your PhD you can publish 10's of bullshit papers or 1-2 genuine really good one. Problem is that even if you publish good ones, they won't have enough citations by the time you graduate to let you get a tenure track in a good institution.
@TheReal_BallzBDragon
@TheReal_BallzBDragon Жыл бұрын
I agree, I didn't even go to college and this is infuriating.
@johnclever8813
@johnclever8813 Жыл бұрын
⁠​⁠@@futurethinking I like being in math, where lying about your results to your journal is essentially impossible to do. The proof is the paper itself, and requires no trust on the part of the editors that you didn’t lie.
@powmod
@powmod Жыл бұрын
Sadly, since diverging from small communities where you knew pretty well the competence of each individual, society nowadays rewards you for appearance rather than merit. You are much more rewarded for being an incompetent con artist that knows how to lie convincingly than a competent and productive honest Pearson.
@smeva26
@smeva26 Жыл бұрын
the whole point of "peer reviewed" articles and studies is specifically to prevent this. Whatever organization agreed to publish her failed at their job imo.
@PeteJudo1
@PeteJudo1 Жыл бұрын
These were top journals! And this isn’t the only time this has happened!
@Shyndree
@Shyndree Жыл бұрын
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking about. It seems that the peer reviewing is broken in the field. Doesn't mean all academia is broken, but maybe they haven't set a high enough standard in this field for checking datasets.
@MartinH81
@MartinH81 Жыл бұрын
Academia and media share one important trait: some sources are considered "trustworthy" and are therefore approached with much less scrutiny as they should, if at all.
@andrewmiller3055
@andrewmiller3055 Жыл бұрын
The joint authors failed to. Their names were on this. They didn't do the crime, but they didn't do much to stop it either.
@codniggh1139
@codniggh1139 Жыл бұрын
lol, this is not new. American Scientific made a big study of their own publications and concluded that a great percentage don't even reach the criteria of being scientific.
@evethel
@evethel Жыл бұрын
There is a saying where I leave; “don’t believe any statistic, that you didn’t fake yourself”
@thomasetavard2031
@thomasetavard2031 Жыл бұрын
How ironic, liars doing a study on lying and then lying about their results. (Update: the irony lies in the statement many would have us believe: "Trust the Science!")
@ShortArmOfGod
@ShortArmOfGod Жыл бұрын
That's not irony.
@vittocrazi
@vittocrazi Жыл бұрын
@@ShortArmOfGod it is. supposed to pass as credible
@vivvpprof
@vivvpprof Жыл бұрын
Psychoanalysts would have a lot to say about that...
@jeffreymontgomery7516
@jeffreymontgomery7516 Жыл бұрын
There they were at the crossroads.... a fork in the road... One path led to the city of Truth, the other to Falsehoods. They saw a person there but did not know which path led to which city, for the signs had fallen. The paths were both well worn, and there was no other indication. Legend had it that once you go to the city of Truth, however, you only tell the truth, and likewise for the city of Falsehoods with only telling lies. But which was this person from? Due to time constraints, they only had one chance.... one moment for a question... and they asked "Which path goes to the city of Truth?" The person lied.... and the wrong path was followed. If they'd only asked... "If I asked you what a person in the city you're from would say was the city of Truth, which would they say?" A Truth teller would tell you what a truth teller would tell you... and lead you to the city of Truth. A liar would tell you a lie about what the liar would say... the person from that city would obviously point you to the wrong city, the city of Falsehoods, so the liar would point you to the city of Truth. And you would follow that path instead.... It's a shame they did not ask the right question.
@sumdumbmick
@sumdumbmick Жыл бұрын
it's generally called 'projection'. you also see it a lot in cheating spouses, dishonest employers, and any religious leaders, which includes academics.
@marciawade8813
@marciawade8813 Жыл бұрын
Pete, please also expose teachers publishing their students' work as their own. Not even as co-authored...
@Blurredborderlines
@Blurredborderlines Жыл бұрын
That’s nothing new, literal centuries worth of work
@someone_7233
@someone_7233 Жыл бұрын
​@@Blurredborderlinesdoesnt change the fact that something should be done about it, its wrong
@nicholasangelo3122
@nicholasangelo3122 Жыл бұрын
Now apply this perspective to patent applications for centuries
@SLK-ep4fc
@SLK-ep4fc Жыл бұрын
😲
@marciawade8813
@marciawade8813 Жыл бұрын
China & Russia are the major violaters of patents, copyrights, trademark...
@alsuperbee9048
@alsuperbee9048 Жыл бұрын
With her most recent book titled “Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life,” she certainly practiced what she preached, breaking the rules to profit.
@paxluporum4447
@paxluporum4447 Жыл бұрын
If you ain't cheating; you ain't trying.
@robbennett
@robbennett Жыл бұрын
Sounds like a sub builder I read about
@amanawolf9166
@amanawolf9166 Жыл бұрын
Reminds me of that person who wrote a book about murdering someone actually killing someone. I think it was last year they were found guilty of murdering their spouse.
@thatrandomcrit5823
@thatrandomcrit5823 Жыл бұрын
@@paxluporum4447 Probably one of the most shittiest mottos I´ve ever heard
@paxluporum4447
@paxluporum4447 Жыл бұрын
@@thatrandomcrit5823 I would suggest you only follow it when you face a dishonorable opponent.
@Hellooo134
@Hellooo134 Жыл бұрын
We need to force journals to publish statistically insignificant results. The pressure to publish
@boncoderz1430
@boncoderz1430 6 ай бұрын
But isn't the entire point of publishing in premium journals is that the data indicates significant results?
@Hellooo134
@Hellooo134 6 ай бұрын
@@boncoderz1430 it shouldn’t be. We should incentivize scientists to have strict standards, not incentivize them to just try and get a certain number. This incentivization has led to so much damage
@francescofinucci
@francescofinucci 5 ай бұрын
or rather prevent publishing from being such a burdersome costriction that you have to publish even if you have nothing to add. Publishing isn't really the only way a scholar can be useful to the community. A most important way, for sure, but not the only one.
@jaksap
@jaksap Жыл бұрын
In research, less than 10% of hypothesis are leading somewhere. For genuine researchers it should be no shame admitting inconclusive results. That is also a contribution to knowledge.
@ReptilianLepton
@ReptilianLepton Жыл бұрын
@@SigFigNewton This. Verifying the null hypothesis doesn't get you grant money, doesn't arouse the interest of prestigious journals, and certainly doesn't get you that sweet, sweet impact score.
@inthefade
@inthefade Жыл бұрын
Null results are important
@RB-fp8hn
@RB-fp8hn Жыл бұрын
Those genuine researchers don't get even the most ordinary tenure-track positions in US universities any more. Most successful research professors produce anywhere between 10-30 publications per year. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being to be aware of the details of every publication, even at the lower end of that range.
@bradyshannon8452
@bradyshannon8452 Жыл бұрын
Yes, it keeps other labs from wasting recourses on dead ends, and especially time. My PI told me he had read well over 1200 articles about one specific subgroup of proteins, and committed to reading any new material produced. Knowing what all these others had contributed saved him a lot of time.
@brandonj7586
@brandonj7586 Жыл бұрын
But inconclusive results don't get you rich and famous I guess...
@lamalamalex
@lamalamalex Жыл бұрын
She’s just the one that got caught. She absolutely is not the only one. It is thousands of these professors that do this.
@rodrigopineda9090
@rodrigopineda9090 Жыл бұрын
I wouldnt be surprised that it would be most of them
@adamstevens5518
@adamstevens5518 Жыл бұрын
And not just professors. Imagine how much expertise large corporations with lots of money to make who have captured their regulatory agencies have. It’s unlikely we’d ever find out.
@MrEspaldapalabras
@MrEspaldapalabras Жыл бұрын
The most interesting thing about this video is the self awareness dawning on him that his entire paradigm is wrong and he's actually useless.
@davidp.7620
@davidp.7620 Жыл бұрын
Yeah, and the fact that her manipulación of data was so obvious un these cases makes me lose hope. What could a skilled cheater get away with?
@haroldcruz8550
@haroldcruz8550 Жыл бұрын
Yup, specially those research that caters to certain political ideologies.
@DerekWong967
@DerekWong967 Жыл бұрын
Francesca Gino's research into dishonesty is basically just a journey of self discovery.
@intelligentidiot502
@intelligentidiot502 Жыл бұрын
you should get all the likes!
@DrippinNyimi
@DrippinNyimi Жыл бұрын
Good one.
@BKai714
@BKai714 Жыл бұрын
Yeb. In her book about how breaking rules will get you ahead in life, she's speaking from personal experiences lol
@DerekWong967
@DerekWong967 Жыл бұрын
@@BKai714 "Gee, i have to be really creative when i'm lying about my findings." Next hypothesis: Dishonest people are more creative.
@doreengordon1475
@doreengordon1475 Жыл бұрын
😂😂😂😂
@tokivikerness8863
@tokivikerness8863 11 ай бұрын
I can't help but think of the 5000 Chinese students that were more qualified to get that position but didn't because they really wanted to hire a woman.
@christophernuzzi2780
@christophernuzzi2780 Жыл бұрын
My undergrad degree is in Psychology. When I took the senior research class, the instructor (she was grad student adjunct, not a full professor), told us that if one statistical test did not bear out our hypothesis, we should try another, and another, etc., until we got the results we wanted. I was shocked. When I questioned whether this was academic dishonesty, she shrugged and said, "This is how it's done." The entire field is a sham. I went to grad school for something else entirely.
@RazorRamonMachismo
@RazorRamonMachismo Жыл бұрын
STEM OR HEAL but most likely STEM and Last Finance
@FeelingGolden
@FeelingGolden Жыл бұрын
It’s stuff like this that give social sciences like psychology a bad repute, and they only have themselves to blame for not setting up/adhering to standards. Fudging the numbers to fit a particular narrative is not what real scientists do. This adjunct professor should try politics, she’ll fit right in there.
@SorbusAucubaria
@SorbusAucubaria Жыл бұрын
That seems to be the way drugs are researched and I bet that is why that research is so expensive.
@SunSunSunn
@SunSunSunn Жыл бұрын
@@benjigeez unfortunately, in academia, it's publish or perish.
@SunSunSunn
@SunSunSunn Жыл бұрын
@@SorbusAucubaria not necessarily, medicine in general has a lot higher threshold of standards to meet because that type of research has to go through an IRB (a type of review board that authorizes conducting clinical studies on real patients)
@brianrusher3617
@brianrusher3617 Жыл бұрын
Study the relationship between dishonesty and success as a Harvard Professor.
@dagreatpenguini
@dagreatpenguini Жыл бұрын
Paging Senator Warren…
@sandman4663
@sandman4663 Жыл бұрын
the relationship between dishonesty and success is a net positive one when you are the right type of dishonest. Look at corporate America lol
@freegeorgia4808
@freegeorgia4808 Жыл бұрын
​@sandman4663 yesh woke corporate America thats destroying the free market. Its easy to see that nonsense.
@chrisreed5463
@chrisreed5463 Жыл бұрын
.....er..... stupidity. As an engineer, we're I to try to fudge data I'd not get caught out making such sloppy and stupid mistakes.
@roosh2927
@roosh2927 Жыл бұрын
@@dagreatpenguini “durrrrrr pAgiNg sEnaToR wARrEn sHe mEAn tO eLon” I knew the mouth breathers and incels would be in the comments of this video, even though they have absolutely no idea what the point was.
@Dylan-zm3ht
@Dylan-zm3ht Жыл бұрын
Wow, I'm a data analyst and not even a good one and looking at this data is hilarious and looks like something a clueless intern would do. Harvard professors should be able to fake data better than this lmao.
@miriamgonczarska613
@miriamgonczarska613 Жыл бұрын
Oh no…
@DeclanMBrennan
@DeclanMBrennan Жыл бұрын
Well, in the future, they'll be able to use software generators to produce plausible data that passes the obvious tests such as Benford's law. Or maybe that's happening already and it's only those who are really sloppy at fabrication that get caught.
@fernando-loula
@fernando-loula Жыл бұрын
They are, and I'm sure they do on a regular basis, that's why most do not get caught.
@lamalamalex
@lamalamalex Жыл бұрын
I doubt they even collect their own data. Which is why they don’t know how to fudge and get caught so badly. They couldn’t even be bothered to ask the poor grad/assistant that most likely collected the data the structure first before they went and fudged it.
@JanPBtest
@JanPBtest Жыл бұрын
It requires a degree of sophistication to fake data convincingly. Those professors in my experience are math ignoramuses most of the time, they just learn certain statistical techniques by rote. The rest is just the art of pulling wool which is far less sophisticated.
@smolpener7430
@smolpener7430 11 ай бұрын
Getting published in a journal is like getting a trophy just for saying you've won. Move the standard to peer review, and make people sign a waiver that'll ruin them financially if they're caught lying to the journal.
@mujnick
@mujnick Жыл бұрын
Academic fraud should be prosecuted imo. Often universities just fire the person and that's the end of it, but there is a lot of public money involved and it endangers credibility of science as a whole.
@falrus
@falrus Жыл бұрын
It's embezzlement
@user-ts8ec7mm7u
@user-ts8ec7mm7u Жыл бұрын
You wouldn't believe how much of your tax dollars are funding complete scientific frauds. It's disgusting.
@wateryleaves
@wateryleaves Жыл бұрын
im pretty sure it is a crime if the research used public funds
@eoinoconnell185
@eoinoconnell185 Жыл бұрын
100% agree. Much government policy is based upon scientific research. A huge amount of resources can be allocated based upon findings.
@MrUbbers
@MrUbbers Жыл бұрын
In the Netherlands a Dutch researcher has been caught and sentenced to 120 hours of community service. With addition of a settlement of 1,5 years of salary to avoid further criminal prosecution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
@otsoko66
@otsoko66 Жыл бұрын
I am at the end of my academic career -- I published my first academic paper in the 70s. When I got my first professor job - at a major research-oriented university, the expectation was that you would publish 2 (or 3 max) papers per year. If you published that few now, you would quickly lose your job (definitely not get tenure, definitely not get grants - which is what drives your research). But, you really cannot publish more than 2 or 3 and have them be high quality, so profs are forced to publish more, and therefore lower quality, papers. At one point my chair told me to publish more papers -- and said explicitly that the university did not care about the quality of the papers, just that there be 5-6 papers published per year. This is all coming from the administrators "managing" professors and finding simple metrics for gauging scholarly "productivity". Fraud is just the most egregious outcome of the system -- the worst part is just having to wade through all the dreck that is being published. So some universities give more weight to papers published in high prestige journals, which are always looking for papers with surprising results -- which leads directly to this kind of fraud. It is a systemic problem, not a problem of a few bad apples.
@freshrockpapa-e7799
@freshrockpapa-e7799 Жыл бұрын
Why do administrators want more papers published per year at the cost of their quality? Surely they understand that is not going to make the university more prestigious, nobody measures how good a university is by "number of papers produced".
@daikigamess
@daikigamess Жыл бұрын
The same reason you have Stupids metrics in every job, they need a metric to show to the higher ups / to determine who is working and half the time they don't know or care about the metric just that the people under them are getting good results so they can say that they're managing the office/university the right way
@TaquitoFestival
@TaquitoFestival Жыл бұрын
"Production for the sake of production - the obsession with the rate of growth, whether in the capitalist market or in planned economies - leads to monstrous absurdities. The only acceptable finality of human activity is the production of a subjectivity that is auto-enriching its relation to the world in a continuous fashion." - Félix Guattari
@Mandragara
@Mandragara Жыл бұрын
​@@freshrockpapa-e7799Universities compete for prestige. Administrators want to advance the university and come up with often stupid ways to do so, like cooking up dumb metrics like number of papers published. There are lots of junk journals that will publish pretty much anything for a fee. Publication at its lowest level just means the paper is formatted correctly and written in passable English.
@pepperonipizza8200
@pepperonipizza8200 Жыл бұрын
@@freshrockpapa-e7799Admins are the shining example of bureaucracy and it’s many idiotic flaws which only a bureaucrat stuffing their pockets would want.
@VolJoe
@VolJoe Жыл бұрын
Stunning. These people aren’t scientists, they are data marketers. It’s all about funding, and one could argue that system is what’s broken.
@Shortpromotions
@Shortpromotions Жыл бұрын
the last few years showed that really well... lots of data is fake...
@Benjomat
@Benjomat Жыл бұрын
So called "science" is completely corrupted!! Absolutely everything. Sad but true. People who say it isn't are too dumb or in it. These are all Muppets with "degrees" paid by the industrie and others. So yeah, the system is broken. Since the very beginning.
@paulunga
@paulunga Жыл бұрын
Capitalism is fundamentally fucked. When everything's done in the pursuit of profit, things like "facts", "compassion for other humans" or "morals" are just hurdles.
@VolJoe
@VolJoe Жыл бұрын
@@paulunga when the CDC is nothing more than a pass through for corporate interests, then we have people like Fauci taking “royalties”. Laws have been broken, and if we aren’t a nation of laws where these people are prosecuted then I agree -we are f’d.
@MeMe-lx2jw
@MeMe-lx2jw Жыл бұрын
But the system IS what's broken. It's "publish or perish," so if you're not constantly putting something out there you won't make it. Universities need your papers to get money, so they don't care what you put out there. People with ethics have a really hard time in such a system and many of us get bullied out of it.
@richardplane2155
@richardplane2155 Жыл бұрын
Before we get into whether she was fudging the results or not, the fact that she was trying to find a causal link between test result honesty and cleansing products tells you all you need to know about her and the institution. To that end, I'd like to apply for her now-vacant role with funding for the following hypotheses: 1. Can I attract better looking birds driving a Ferrari or a beat up Chevy? 2. Do Coldplay play better gigs when I have a front seat, VIP ticket, compared to when I don't ? 3. The statistical probability of a coin toss outcome conducted in the Bronx compared to a four star hotel in Bali. If the Provost can forward the application papers ill be right over .
@music_YT2023
@music_YT2023 Жыл бұрын
Sometimes good science means null results. We had an academic scandal at my university and it was painful. We'd spent 4 years pursuing hypothesis formulated from fabricated results. We couldn't get their antibodies or their transgenic mice to work and yet 'we' were viewed as the problem. We were made to repeat our results over and over on the assumption the original paper was pristine until the news broke regarding the main investigator, and his graduate students taken in by other PIs. I think the pressure to publish on top of the pressure to find 'surprising results' can lead to academic dishonesty, but there should be a greater push from academia and industry to publish the non-surprising and null results. It might lessen the amount of duplicative bench work and bring greater integrity to the fields. Pre-registering studies and public data repositories are starting to gain traction but I wish the process were faster. This sort of open sharing can certainly shed greater light on fraudulent data, as revealed by Uri, Joe, & Leif.
@estrangedsavant5112
@estrangedsavant5112 Жыл бұрын
This problem has been known for many years, what's the incentive for the system to change?
@biggestcomplainer
@biggestcomplainer Жыл бұрын
At what point do we revoke a PHD status
@smileyp4535
@smileyp4535 Жыл бұрын
This is exactly the problem, our economy is so warped it's better to cheat and get paid than to do actual science and make a living off it. Null results are good, double checking and peer review is worth studying and spending money on
@tigreytigrey8537
@tigreytigrey8537 Жыл бұрын
It's cause the mice were gender neutral. You said they were trangender mice.
@moth5799
@moth5799 Жыл бұрын
@@tigreytigrey8537 Transgenic, not transgender.
@jackgenewtf
@jackgenewtf Жыл бұрын
Note to self: When falsifying data in a spreadsheet, be sure to re-sort the data afterwards.
@webaazul2500
@webaazul2500 Жыл бұрын
That is my main takeaway, she got caught mainly because 1) Nobody bothered to actually scrutinize her work. 2) The data manipulation was so badly done. And yet it took many years for someone to finally notice the anomalies, now imagine how many competent grifters are out there and nobody suspects anything...
@ii795
@ii795 Жыл бұрын
@@webaazul2500 Is it just me thinking about -global warming- climate change?
@senor2930
@senor2930 Жыл бұрын
​@@ii795 it's not *just* about that. But all the "research" by these crooked blue blooded universities can be & must be questioned. These "Ivy Leagues" have sole purpose. Manufacturing believeable intellectual crap that the TPTB can use to sell their propaganda. But they no longer even care about the intellectual part. e.g. Judith Butler's book is literal diarrhea on paper without any intellectually honest research sticking to any actual academia. Yet, the TPTB use it to push the gender madness.
@webaazul2500
@webaazul2500 Жыл бұрын
@@ii795 Given how many industries, companies and even governments rely on so called "Greenhouse emitting processes", if climate change was a hoax they would've debunked it a long time ago due to a strong incentive, that is not the case; so I think that one is pretty much cemented as a real thing.
@Dylan-jb8vy
@Dylan-jb8vy Жыл бұрын
@@ii795except climate change isn’t solely written about by a single rogue researcher and is instead a topic agreed upon by thousands of independent researchers who study things like that for their profession.
@nathanlamberth7631
@nathanlamberth7631 Жыл бұрын
She ought to get sued. Other researchers have built their research on top of her data. Harvard has seen there reputation muddled. Her coworkers could be collateral damage
@fubarpie
@fubarpie Жыл бұрын
She should be criminally charged. This amounts to embezzlement of government funds due to the grants involved. She stole from the American People.
@michaelgoldsmith9359
@michaelgoldsmith9359 Жыл бұрын
That's stupid. Coauthors are responsible for what they put their name on.
@rheawelsh4142
@rheawelsh4142 Жыл бұрын
​@@michaelgoldsmith9359They're probably referring to other people who've referenced or performed studies that relied on her data being true
@G.Padilla
@G.Padilla Жыл бұрын
@@michaelgoldsmith9359 Mind you, if you're going to attack a comment with ad hominem first thing, at least proof read your own to make some sense. How did you end up with "coauthors" when he's talking about people basing their work on hers? (That's referencing, in case you didn't know. Not collaborating)
@rusk3986
@rusk3986 Жыл бұрын
As a person who has authored papers with others, it would be a pretty huge betrayal for one of my coauthors to lie and spoof data. If I have to check every piece of their work with a fine toothed comb and recreate it myself, why even have a coauthor in the first place. In any sort of big data field it’d be essentially impossible. The fact that it would tarnish my name is another reason why it’s unacceptable to do
@robertmiller1299
@robertmiller1299 10 ай бұрын
I was struck by the sheer silliness of the subjects of the articles. Also the fact in the first paper that the subjects being tested were lied to - telling them that their answers were destroyed when they were presented. No good person would tell such fibs!
@ReneTihista
@ReneTihista 8 ай бұрын
I noticed that too. And the smug asswhole who revealed this unethical subterfuge basked in the laughter of his audience who obviously thought lying to study participants is so so amusing doncha know.
@glep3570
@glep3570 Жыл бұрын
No one would believe that 80% of students would lie. Makes me question this field in general.
@warlordofbritannia
@warlordofbritannia Жыл бұрын
The only way something like this could happen anyways is in an experiment where the subject is strongly encouraged to lie. And unless you’re specifically testing for that…well, you get the point. What I find it interesting is that she weighted the study towards lying but kept fudging the data until she got the results she wanted. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to try to find the breaking point, when the incentive to cheat becomes statistically significant?
@odins_claw
@odins_claw Жыл бұрын
Exactly. I find it extremely suspicious that the percentage of uni students lying was below 95%
@jeffjones6951
@jeffjones6951 Жыл бұрын
Trump would have self-reported 20 correct out of 20
@AUniqueHandleName444
@AUniqueHandleName444 Жыл бұрын
@@odins_claw Really? For a few bucks? That's sad.
@reasonablespeculation3893
@reasonablespeculation3893 Жыл бұрын
@@jeffjones6951 Of Course, just as everyone would expect If he did otherwise , observers would expect they were being manipulated by him. Whole different psychological game going on with Trump, or any Trump like character.
@Serious-Man
@Serious-Man Жыл бұрын
These people should receive fake paychecks for their fake work.
@kirito3082
@kirito3082 Жыл бұрын
And get the George Floyd threatment when they ultimately attempt to use it
@kronos01ful
@kronos01ful Жыл бұрын
Explain how is fake so you can not be deceived and I can follow you.
@luckystarship2275
@luckystarship2275 Жыл бұрын
Which people?
@tonybalongna
@tonybalongna Жыл бұрын
@@kirito3082why the bait man lol
@Number6_
@Number6_ Жыл бұрын
In the us these days all pay checks are fake.
@MrTweetyhack
@MrTweetyhack Жыл бұрын
ALL her articles need to be retracted. Imagine having a professor who lies and cheats. What kind of role model is that?
@theonethathungers5552
@theonethathungers5552 Жыл бұрын
They need to be reviewed. There’s no reason to toss a good study from a shitty researcher
@aaronlandry3934
@aaronlandry3934 Жыл бұрын
Her PhD should be revoked. If she’s cheating here, she’s probably gotten away with cheating getting there
@smugduck6448
@smugduck6448 Жыл бұрын
Dr. Eddi Guerrero
@Mandragara
@Mandragara Жыл бұрын
That would set an insane precedent. Journals make no claim that all papers they publish are true.
@Mandragara
@Mandragara Жыл бұрын
​@@aaronlandry3934No way. That's like firing a worker and demand they backpay years of salary.
@joshuareynolds6958
@joshuareynolds6958 Жыл бұрын
In case nobody else tells you, I super appreciate the rundown on your video at the beginning. I'm usually listening and don't get the chance to search a description for a summary. That being said, you're wasting your time. I always manage to finish them:P
@lindybeige
@lindybeige Жыл бұрын
A major thing broken about academia is the peer-review system. Do you think that can be blamed in this instance? It seems that quite a lot of work was needed to spot the falsification.
@NothingYouHaventReadBefore
@NothingYouHaventReadBefore Жыл бұрын
Isn't a great amount of peer-reviewing not basically a 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'-type scenario?
@josephhales2126
@josephhales2126 Жыл бұрын
I personally have not participated in getting a paper published or reviewed. Still, I imagine there's a fair bit of rubber stamping going on like there is in code reviews (I'm a software developer). We don't typically depend on code reviews for catching bugs/cheats, we have separate quality controls to handle those circumstances. I imagine experiment repeatability is something that should be done more often, though I imagine that it's hard to find funding for such endeavors. AI may have a role to play here. Additionally, we may want to start requiring that the raw data be stored: not just excel sheets, but scans of any documents/forms used.
@MAEBikr
@MAEBikr Жыл бұрын
I do lots of peer review. I have never been given a dataset to accompany an article.
@Tugela60
@Tugela60 Жыл бұрын
Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing. Most times the reviewers are not that familiar with the subject matter. You have no idea how long it takes to do this exhaustively either. Most scientists don't have the time and only do it since it is sort of an obligation. Usually the reviews are fairly superficial as a result, and generally would be done by 2 or 3 people. There is not really any other practical way of doing it. The real peer review happens AFTER something is published when those working in the field will either accept it or dismiss it as weak or otherwised flawed work. This is also part of the scientific process. Just because something is published does not mean it is accepted or written in stone. Many papers are simply wrong for a variety of reasons, fraud just being one of them. More usually it is because of poor experiment design (typically lack of adequate controls), poor statistics or the researcher themself only having a superficial understanding of the subject matter. All of these other factors are much more common than fraud. Most people who commit fraud DON'T want to be noticed, they just want publications, so it is rarely found in significant papers. Fraud tends to be in more routine stuff where no one will notice because it is just like similar work, except it involves made up numbers rather than actual data.
@Tugela60
@Tugela60 Жыл бұрын
@berenddeliagrebohl1981 Nope. While you can suggest names in your field to the editor sometimes, you usually have no idea who the manuscript will be sent to, and in fact it is often sent to people who are clearly unfamiliar with the field which can be a problem sometimes. If you get a manuscript from someone you know personally and like you will probably be more kind with the wording of the review but other than that they get the same critique as anyone else (they will not know that you were the reviewer). If it is someone you know and don't like, they will get extra vigourous attention 😀
@karas9530
@karas9530 Жыл бұрын
This is especially disappointing because psychological research is already looked down upon, now people have even more reason to be suspect.
@brokenrecord3523
@brokenrecord3523 Жыл бұрын
Remember when scientists discovered the Viceroy butterflies taste bad too (re Monarch mimicry)? This was proof that science doesn't work. , because scientists found their theory was wrong and changed it. My point: trust in scientists is fragile in a post-factual society. Gino makes it so much worse.
@jimmymaracas6442
@jimmymaracas6442 Жыл бұрын
It’s looked down upon because it’s all based on nonsense
@JoseRodriguez-lp7rs
@JoseRodriguez-lp7rs Жыл бұрын
@@jimmymaracas6442based
@cejannuzi
@cejannuzi Жыл бұрын
Is it even really psychological research though? It's garbage pseudo-science done in a garbage field of 'business studies'.
@NathanaelManson
@NathanaelManson Жыл бұрын
@@JoseRodriguez-lp7rs Based base
@Jp-ue8xz
@Jp-ue8xz Жыл бұрын
Also ironic that being such a massive cheater and full of it, she was incredibly non-creative when it came to hiding her cheating. Kind of further disproves her own hypothesis
@musclemonke
@musclemonke Жыл бұрын
And it's so hilarious how we are always trying to romanticize our defects
@clueannwilliams1069
@clueannwilliams1069 Жыл бұрын
Hey, that was nice of you to state the truth and still lend support to her. Well done, you have demonstrated Grace!!!!!
@kabaxx
@kabaxx Жыл бұрын
My wife is a researcher in the medical field, and she was horrified by the system implemented in some departments at Harvard: they would put several teams on the same subject and let go of those... Underperforming. Think about bad incentives. This scandal at Harvard is just a small speck of ice, sitting on the upper tip of the iceberg.
@haya4895
@haya4895 Жыл бұрын
This is horrible to hear
@mojrimibnharb4584
@mojrimibnharb4584 Жыл бұрын
Interesting...
@MandatoryReporter2015
@MandatoryReporter2015 Жыл бұрын
I worked for the world’s biggest research journal as a copy editor from 1992 to 2005; fraud is rampant and covered up. Millions of dollars are at stake.
@auralit8
@auralit8 Жыл бұрын
Did your journal ever knowingly publish fraudulent data, or was it covered up later?
@Blurredborderlines
@Blurredborderlines Жыл бұрын
@@auralit8I believe the latter is the implication
@TrinoBobino
@TrinoBobino Жыл бұрын
It's crazy that all of these articles have to do with honesty as well. It's almost like she's projecting what she's doing.
@gregsarnecki7581
@gregsarnecki7581 Жыл бұрын
There's a lot of projection going around these days...Once you are aware that folks/groups do it, it becomes very easy to assess what they are really up to.
@DS-nv2ni
@DS-nv2ni Жыл бұрын
AI research is the worse, is probably the most corrupted sector of science atm. Money rules over everything of course, even physics is affected by political and ideological propaganda, just look at Einstein work, nothing was proven of what he suggested yet.
@siewheilou399
@siewheilou399 Жыл бұрын
Her field of research.
@serversurfer6169
@serversurfer6169 Жыл бұрын
"Dishonest people are more creative! 🤪"
@jeffjones6951
@jeffjones6951 Жыл бұрын
Kinda meta
@adrianglamorgan9486
@adrianglamorgan9486 Жыл бұрын
An important review, thank you, and appreciated the tender messaging to Francesca Gino at the end. Just one thing, but important: "vigilantes" act outside the law, whereas the academics who tested Gino et al's data and found it wanting were conducting research well within scientific rules. They were testing it properly. Real life vigilantes take the law into their own hands, without objectivity. I know rerecording this so many times would be a lot of work, but perhaps some comment about this is deserving for the brave three writers who took the issue on? Thanks again for the main message of this video, very helpeful!
@mohammadsattar5488
@mohammadsattar5488 Жыл бұрын
It would be funny if she came out and said she did all this on purpose to see just how long it would take people to actually check the evidence and not believe what others are saying so easily and THAT was part of her behavioral analysis
@xXSjapXx
@xXSjapXx Жыл бұрын
Part 4
@ellag3265
@ellag3265 Жыл бұрын
"This itself was a psychological study"
@AD-nx1xd
@AD-nx1xd Жыл бұрын
Would she top or tail her explanation with an honesty pledge and which would impress fellow 'academics' most?
@LRPandaPp
@LRPandaPp Жыл бұрын
A true narcissist would 100% play it that way!
@ChemiiOneLegacy
@ChemiiOneLegacy Жыл бұрын
This would be a great way to recover her career with an actual legitimate paper.
@ohchristonastick
@ohchristonastick Жыл бұрын
I'd like to take a moment to thank the three vigilantes for trawling through the data to bring this farce to light. Well done, gentlemen.
@Londubh
@Londubh Жыл бұрын
Yup. True scientists and academics
@gloriagarza6823
@gloriagarza6823 Жыл бұрын
Peace. Well done, GENtle people. Peace.
@requited2568
@requited2568 Жыл бұрын
Their called actual scientist's, all they did was their job in verifying others work before accepting it as true. Something that has been deliberately stopped and replaced with peer review, to facilitate this exact problem.
@LoGStein
@LoGStein Жыл бұрын
​@@requited2568 I hope you won't get mad at me, the grammar nazi. It's "They're called actual scientists..."
@requited2568
@requited2568 Жыл бұрын
@@LoGStein no worries. Not sure how I did that, but will leave my shame for all to see. Think I started out with Their job is... And changed it.
@gomahklawm4446
@gomahklawm4446 Жыл бұрын
This should be a felony......why is it not? Lying in a position such as she had, should come with SEVERE consequences.
@curious_one1156
@curious_one1156 Жыл бұрын
how are you going to find and prove who is lying ? You need to spend money to do that.
@Jack93885
@Jack93885 Жыл бұрын
@@curious_one1156 "how are you going to find and prove who did the murder? You need to spend money to do that." Isn't that just what investigations of crimes are about? Spending the money to gather enough evidence to prosecute the person who caused harm. Seems like the guys who've published these articles were able to do whatever digital forensics needed to confidently allege deliberate editing of the data.
@NoBaconForYou
@NoBaconForYou Жыл бұрын
Freedom Rings, socialist.
@AnEnemyAnemone1
@AnEnemyAnemone1 Жыл бұрын
@@NoBaconForYouou would be killed by smart people if there were as few laws as you seem to want
@costakeith9048
@costakeith9048 Жыл бұрын
It's not a legal document, you can't charge them with perjury; the first amendment protects the right to lie in most situations, this one included. The solution isn't legal consequences but increased skepticism of academic studies that haven't been reproduced by multiple independent researchers. Repeatability is the cornerstone of science, if an experiment hasn't been repeated multiple times using the same methodology, the results should always be suspect.
@Otaku155
@Otaku155 Жыл бұрын
As an honest academic, this kind of thing really pisses me off!
@SaltNBattery
@SaltNBattery Жыл бұрын
Falsifying scientific data should be a crime. Research like this influences some very important areas of society. Laws, government, business, society as a whole. "Scientific" studies and papers directly influence so many things. On top of that, these people are defrauding and lying to people for their own economic benefit. She should receive a prison sentence.
@Dudemon-1
@Dudemon-1 Жыл бұрын
You would be surprised at how much garbage gets published in the medical field.
@sn0wchyld
@sn0wchyld Жыл бұрын
unfortunately those that are in a position to put forward and enforce such laws are also the ones often with a vested interest in pre-determined outcomes...
@alaysiakayebutler6299
@alaysiakayebutler6299 Жыл бұрын
Fraud on steroids due to the persuasion these lies are used for. Immorality. Criminal. :(
@jeevacation
@jeevacation Жыл бұрын
Or you know, don't make decisions based on a field that relies on creativity and changes constantly?
@keithnicholas
@keithnicholas Жыл бұрын
no, that directly goes against free speech. You are allowed to publish whatever you like. What is going wrong is the scientific method, namely reproducibility and peer review. Eventually, as in this case, someone will review things in greater detail. But sometimes it might take decades before someone does (and for things people don't really care that much about, it may never get reviewed). Accountability comes about when caught out, you tend to lose your job and are very unlikely to get hired in the field again. It is up to each institution to protect its reputation by holding its researchers to a high standard.
@HassanAlbalawi
@HassanAlbalawi Жыл бұрын
Academia needs to find away to incentivize researchers to publish the trials that didn’t lead to the expected results so others learn from it as well and avoid that path.
@josepablolunasanchez1283
@josepablolunasanchez1283 Жыл бұрын
I guess I will present them 3 hypothesis about predicting the future to see if they fund me. I bet the results will be surprising. * Tomorrow will be another day * After the storm calm will come * In only 2 days tomorrow will be yesterday. 😂
@42468
@42468 Жыл бұрын
The truth is it’s a lot of work. Preprint archives like arxiv are perfect for that role, yet a lot of work goes unpublished. It’s seen as a waste of time writing up results that don’t advance your career or field-nobody got a doctorate with inconclusive data.
@skylar4775
@skylar4775 Жыл бұрын
You would think that’s desirable. But it’s something that is looked down upon by someone like my PhD advisor. He would simply imply that it’s a skill issue (meaning you executed your experiments poorly) for being unable to produce positive data. That’s why academia is so toxic and many PhDs are not remaining in it (myself included).
@steelazuredragon
@steelazuredragon Жыл бұрын
the problem are also the journals: they often do not want to publish research that yields uninteresting results or replication studies that try to verify ore refute another paper. simply because new and interesting gives them better PR/means to earn money than unintersting and old. the second big part is how the peer review is handled. the journals basically go to random researchers in the same field and ask them to check a paper/study. the researchers get paid pennies for this and often don't have a lot of time to thoroughly check everything. I've read stories were the professors simply relegated this to some or student or a postgraduate. and if the paper doesn't look completely bogus / illogical it gets okay-ed. another big part is how research budget is getting alloted. once again everybody only wants to finance studies that yield big, new, interesting results leading researchers to go for fringe topics and issues with specifically designed studies to ge the result they want. its a host of issues that lead to a very unfortunate situation that academia finds itelf in.
@MinnesotaFarmboy
@MinnesotaFarmboy Жыл бұрын
Yet there should still be a journal or archive where somebody can publish an article that just says, "well this didn't work."
@erintyres3609
@erintyres3609 Жыл бұрын
I was shocked to learn that when a paper is submitted for peer review, the reviewers usually do not have complete access to all of the original data. This makes it impossible for reviewers do properly check the paper's analysis and conclusions.
@gronki1
@gronki1 Жыл бұрын
You usually read it and give a few comments, suggest some citations or some changes to the paper, but you never go through any tables or check any data.
@glenm99
@glenm99 Жыл бұрын
If the paper is very closely related to your research, you might assign a grad student to try to replicate the results. In that case you might request the original data. But otherwise you're not really equipped to evaluate the data, so there's no point in having it. When reviewing, you're mostly checking the methodology, ensuring clarity, and so on. You assume that the data was compiled correctly and honestly. Somebody will check the results in some future experiment; that's not the reviewer's role.
@Ashakat42
@Ashakat42 Жыл бұрын
​@glenm99 This sounds similar to the replication crisis of the 2010's or am I wrong?
@erintyres3609
@erintyres3609 Жыл бұрын
@@glenm99 I would think that a peer ought to be "really equipped to evaluate the data". You're his peer, after all. Also, the reviewer should check the methodology by reviewing how the data was analyzed. In the famous Michael Mann paper about climate change with the hockey stick graph, the data was massaged in a way that any input values would show an increasing trend. Without adequate review, any paper could contain misleading graphs, misleading statistics, and unwarranted conclusions. Even a completely honest author could have inappropriate statistical analysis.
@paavobergmann4920
@paavobergmann4920 Жыл бұрын
@@Ashakat42 The replication crisis is ongoing since the 80´s, and nothing has changed since 2010, don´t kid yourself.
@ellenchavez2043
@ellenchavez2043 Жыл бұрын
The thing about research is that it's not hard to get the answer you want: that's a simple matter of switching statistical operations until you get the answer you want. The trick to research is asking the right questions; developing the right tools. A better question is why people are dishonest to begin with.
@illusivec
@illusivec Жыл бұрын
I did my master's in Software Engineering and started my PhD in the same college. After a few months, I got so disgusted by the massive egos of everyone in Academia I decided to quit before I lost my soul in that mire. I've been working in the private industry for nearly a decade now. I've met with CEOs who are worth hundreds of millions. I'm yet to see anyone with an ego as big as random teaching assistants in my old university. Honestly, I'm amazed anyone is able to achieve anything in the world of academia.
@jennysmith9134
@jennysmith9134 Жыл бұрын
The stories I could tell... there are some groups that are actively trying to change... but that is the exception and not the standard.
@JackAndTheBeanstalkr
@JackAndTheBeanstalkr Жыл бұрын
CEOs are the epitome of humility... Jeffery Skilling & Dennis Kozlowski come to mind right away.
@glenyoung1809
@glenyoung1809 Жыл бұрын
I’ve worked on both sides of the aisle, I worked as a research assistant for a decade after getting my BSc in Physics, I’ve also worked in the oil and gas industry after getting an MSc in Geophysics. What I’ve noticed is that the egos are just a large in the business world but they’re found only at the highest levels and in most corporations they are not allowed to interfere with the operation of the business. There is much more accountability for your actions and behaviour at all levels of a company than you would find in an academic research setting. The world of academic politics is much more intense, more personal and more viscous than in the corporate sector precisely because their is little bottom line to damage. Corporate shareholders and boards of directors take a very dim view of infighting which gets to the point of impacting the image and profitability of a company. Whereas two professors and their respective research teams who are feuding don’t get reined in, the university normally doesn’t involve itself in such matters as long as the feud isn’t too public and damaging to donations and reputation. You’re right in how disgustingly low academics can stoop to, in 10 years of working in a lab I’ve seen tantrums which would put toddlers to shame. I’ve also seen darker things happening which are best left unsaid.
@WK-47
@WK-47 Жыл бұрын
I can only imagine. I've only studied to bachelor level, first in the humanities and then later in STEM, and have been put off by academia just from outside observation, enough to know that it's not something I want to be part of. I think there's something to the idea that the egotism and ideological leanings typical in academia, particularly the humanities, can be attributed to the fact that professors, etc. may have authority in their field but zero direct influence in society (in contrast to business/military/political/religious leaders), leading to an institutional case of inferiority complex. Anyway, good on you for having the awareness and self-respect to remove yourself from that mire, as you aptly put it.
@jennysmith9134
@jennysmith9134 Жыл бұрын
@@glenyoung1809 You put in a long time! I'm getting a second doctorate and I have 5 years in academia (for work). I'm amazed at the tenuous ties to the hospital and department. It feels like no one (dean, finance, payroll, supply chain) knows what we do even on a multi-million dollar project. It isn't that we need more oversight on my studies, but allies to help get our work done. No one believes me when I say it is cut throat; I'm glad you said it. Eye-ing industry....
@davidlea-smith4747
@davidlea-smith4747 Жыл бұрын
One positive about this story is that due to pubpeer, retraction watch and a growing number of people actively calling out fraud (i.e. Elizabeth Bik), these kind of people are increasingly being caught whereas 20 years ago they may not have been.
@Bob-lw2kt
@Bob-lw2kt Жыл бұрын
Is your explaining character. There is an absolute lack of character in america today. That probably has everything to do with the Psychological operation, as in, psyop, that they, military/gov't. entity, have been presenting unknowingly to this population of liars and cheaters.. The lack of character today explains exactly everything we're seeing in the population of what is allowed.
@freegeorgia4808
@freegeorgia4808 Жыл бұрын
Recently 3 students duped several academic journals. They reworked Mein Kaumpt as a feminist paper snd it was readily accepted. Not only was it accepted they invited the authors to be reviewers.
@davidlea-smith4747
@davidlea-smith4747 Жыл бұрын
@@freegeorgia4808 Can you send me a link to the story?
@michaelhixson6939
@michaelhixson6939 Жыл бұрын
Agreed. But do we think she is the only one who has been lying for the last 20 years. How much of the academy's foundation is built upon junk-research dressed up to look fascinating, incredible, impactful? How much has been used to create cultural and political movements whose activists are so believing in their truth, yet their entire outlook is predicated upon lies?
@mrtechie6810
@mrtechie6810 Жыл бұрын
​@@freegeorgia4808makes sense.
@ClappOnUpp
@ClappOnUpp Жыл бұрын
Damn... I guess Harvard needs to put an honesty pledge at the TOP of their employment application forms from now on
@friarnewborg9213
@friarnewborg9213 Жыл бұрын
STOP giving t hem Money, it encorages them'
@brooklyncoach1153
@brooklyncoach1153 Жыл бұрын
@@friarnewborg9213 Harvard has acquired enough money to exist for the next 2 centuries.
@ericgrosch8073
@ericgrosch8073 Жыл бұрын
Please explain. I understood, from the investigation's conclusion, that, contrary to the paper's conclusion, there was no statistical significance in results of placing the honesty-pledge at the top or bottom of the application.
@omkarpatwardhan3070
@omkarpatwardhan3070 Жыл бұрын
@@ericgrosch8073 Its sarcasm, not a serious appeal
@nigelstafford635
@nigelstafford635 Жыл бұрын
🤚🎤
@TheGodSaw
@TheGodSaw Жыл бұрын
The craziest thing to me is how little effort they put into faking the data.
@Uenbg
@Uenbg Жыл бұрын
The advantage of the rise of scientism. The undying trust of the flock who will blindly believe you based on your scientific reputation and credits on paper (and the success of your career), and the reputation of your employer (in this case Harvard) and the praise received from fellow scammers in similar positions and part of the same cliques of con-artists posing as scientists making supposed valuable contributions to the sciences.
@annie000
@annie000 Жыл бұрын
She wrote a book called "Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life" in 2018. 😐 I hate liars like her ughhh....
@markkithinji2666
@markkithinji2666 Жыл бұрын
Makes sense that she'd write that😂
@angeloalonzo5500
@angeloalonzo5500 Жыл бұрын
Yeah I listened to that audiobook too, I can't believe it happens on Harvard
@kathrynoneill81
@kathrynoneill81 Жыл бұрын
...but isn't it great when they get exposed and taken down by decent people, bent on keeping society from drowning in the insanity these liars create?
@KingAntDaProphet
@KingAntDaProphet Жыл бұрын
Tax loopholes?
@Incandescentiron
@Incandescentiron Жыл бұрын
She clearly reaped the benefits of breaking the rules.
@brandonbagwell7676
@brandonbagwell7676 Жыл бұрын
I'm reminded of the apocraphyl saying that most psychologists go to school to figure out what's wrong with them. The fact she studies honesty isn't ironic, its telling.
@WarPigstheHun
@WarPigstheHun Жыл бұрын
It's horrible. But also a product of the pay system: she keeps her job only if her research papees are sensational. She gets even more money selling articles on the rhe studies. It's a society problem. Because people cheat and cut corners all the time in even regular, non academic jobs. We're taught to never admit mistakes and this is the result. More lying to others and others
@basedovi
@basedovi Жыл бұрын
That would actually make her a genuinely good and honest pure soul. I don't believe this. People who are true to themselves are true to the world as well.
@k_tess
@k_tess Жыл бұрын
​@@basedoviThat's not what he's saying. He's saying they do it unconsciously. He's saying that they're projecting.
@basedovi
@basedovi Жыл бұрын
@@k_tess I know mate. Unconscious but still a good hidden virtue, albeit not acknowledged by them.
@MM3Soapgoblin
@MM3Soapgoblin Жыл бұрын
I'm going to wait for her to release a new paper about how all the cheating she did on the previous papers was actually just part of a larger study on how much cheating you can get away with in academia. People like her always double down.
@RazorRamonMachismo
@RazorRamonMachismo Жыл бұрын
BASED PATRICK BATEMAN will be proud
@solomongaremani7816
@solomongaremani7816 Жыл бұрын
the ultimate research paper
@dsirius1500
@dsirius1500 Жыл бұрын
She is not enough creative for this, she proved it by how bad she was at faking those data.
@a_maxed_out_handle_of_30_chars
@a_maxed_out_handle_of_30_chars Жыл бұрын
bro 🤣🤣🤣
@tonykriss1594
@tonykriss1594 Жыл бұрын
And that would be ten magnitude more stupid than what she has done. Even if that's true It would be a terrible experiment set up with like zero research value. Three academic fraud from one person? That's a joke of a sample not even fit for primary school project for 10 yrs old.
@dianekivi5349
@dianekivi5349 Жыл бұрын
This type of behaviour, is more common than people think! It occurs in all fields of research!
@lobstermash
@lobstermash Жыл бұрын
I bet it occurs more in some fields than in others, depending on the nature of the discipline (if indeed the field qualifies to be considered as a discipline.) The disinterested search for truth does not drive a field which is structured around political positions.
@shortstraw4
@shortstraw4 Жыл бұрын
This is why journals should demand all data and materials be publicly available as a requirement for publication
@punkinholler
@punkinholler Жыл бұрын
Sure, but who is going to go through all that? Reviewers aren't paid and it already takes a lot of time just to evaluate the paper.
@evenblackercrow4476
@evenblackercrow4476 Жыл бұрын
I agree. The very least any journal publishing quantitative research should do is check for a properly 'cleaned' dataset. All three examples here would've failed that review. Most journal are particular about the software used for the studies submitted to them for publication, so I don't see so much effort needed to get people to look at the datasets that support the research. Model or modeling errors can be ferreted out by peer review or the readers themselves.... Perhaps, we need to grade the publishers on such a minimal compliance basis as this.
@SaintRubicon
@SaintRubicon Жыл бұрын
​@@punkinholler i dont know, but atleast 3 professors did in this case, and thats all it takes.
@gloopgloopglorp
@gloopgloopglorp Жыл бұрын
​@@punkinholleryou underestimate the power of nerds on the internet.
@Runthemjewels
@Runthemjewels Жыл бұрын
@@SaintRubiconyea, once again, 3 unpaid professors after like a year or more of researching it. Maybe if there was an incentive or something, given we live in a capitalist hellscape. But something absolutely does need to be done, i just dont want people to turn this into one giant “academia bad” thing bc of one professor. Theres still thousands of hard working researchers out there doing real work.
@thecolorjune
@thecolorjune Жыл бұрын
The craziest part of this data manipulation is she wouldn’t have even been caught if she wasn’t so messy and lazy with the fake data. Seriously. If she had just sorted it and labeled it identically to the other answers… we would never know. And that’s not cool.
@uranus.tlatoani
@uranus.tlatoani Жыл бұрын
If she's not lazy, she will made real research
@ssu7653
@ssu7653 Жыл бұрын
@@uranus.tlatoani She did real research, it didnt give the answer she wanted so she changed it.
@Johnconno
@Johnconno Жыл бұрын
Is that you Jimi?
@uranus.tlatoani
@uranus.tlatoani Жыл бұрын
@@ssu7653 that's no real research is real faking
@mitchchang5329
@mitchchang5329 Жыл бұрын
It always strikes me how lazy these guys (Schoen... etc) are when they are fabricating their data. But, honestly, these guys can't be all that dumb! Now this would lead to an unpleasant conclusion ...
@KaraBuntinTutorials
@KaraBuntinTutorials Жыл бұрын
When I was an undergrad in the 80's I had a visiting professor from Harvard who taught a class in Psychology. He was working on a pet project of his at the time and talked about it all the time, so of course we decided to suck up to him to get a better grade by working on some related research for our term paper. My little team did our research and found zero effect, absolutely nothing that he was hypothesizing was right, which wasn't what we had expected. We knew that he wasn't going to be happy with that result, so we worked as hard as we could to explain this or that away to make it look like there was ANYTHING there. We managed to eke out a "maybe if this had been different the effect would be this" kind of paper, and he was fine with it, but we knew that his theory was totally wrong. A few years later, I saw that he had published a paper about it that had a completely opposite result, everything that he was theorizing was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it was basically accepted as brilliant scientific fact. I've always thought that he must have been very selective in his research subjects, or that there was some manipulation of data by somebody to prove his point. To this day I'm suspicious of everything that comes out of "research" of any kind, I want to read the actual papers before I'll believe what people say the study says. Half the time the data is weak, and the other half it's being misinterpreted by whoever wants to make a point.
@TheLivirus
@TheLivirus Жыл бұрын
The fact that students and junior researchers are afraid of showing their seniors wrong is a significant part of the problem.
@pdqkevin
@pdqkevin Жыл бұрын
This is also true of news and the media that delivers it. Don’t just believe the reports that the news media disseminates. Investigate the sources and draw your own conclusions.
@FrankDunne-ui9ji
@FrankDunne-ui9ji Жыл бұрын
They are worth billions that's all they care about, a lot of their students are dumb degree paid for.The top college my ass.
@justanothermortal1373
@justanothermortal1373 Жыл бұрын
This comment really changed my view of things. Thanks.
@Dabaiko
@Dabaiko Жыл бұрын
You know what else is a problem? The people who know the names of these fraudulent 'researchers' and don't publicly expose them. If you want to make a difference, post his name and your research proving him wrong.
@imakappa1304
@imakappa1304 Жыл бұрын
Another sign that some fields of Academia are broken is the over-reliance on finding a p-value < 0.05 to show your research is important 1) 0.05 is a pretty arbitrary threshold, and a pretty low one at that 2) Rejecting the null hypothesis doesn't necessarily support your alternative hypothesis. Besides, p-values are probabilities about the *data*, not how likely your hypotheses are to be true! 3) Something could be statistically significant, but have a meagre effect size 4) Your sample could violate the assumptions of your statistical test (usually an assumption of normality and independent samples), thereby making any p-value you produce straight up meaningless P-values can be useful, but only in the appropriate context, under the appropriate assumptions, and with an appropriate interpretation. Getting a significant p-value is a decent *first step* to then conduct follow up studies. At least, ideally.
@hmhmoinsdk
@hmhmoinsdk Жыл бұрын
Honestly i am not shocked - when i wrote my bachelors' thesis in psychology my professor basically demanded that we tamper with the dataset in order to produce an effect since the total dataset wasn't showing anything
@Coastpsych_fi99
@Coastpsych_fi99 Жыл бұрын
Same this is a huge issue with data and statistics that they can be manipulated, often there is an incentive for researchers to do so. This is very sad as it undermines public trust in academic research in behaviour studies.
@fluriekfluriek2913
@fluriekfluriek2913 Жыл бұрын
@@Coastpsych_fi99Wow, that’s crazy. Can you guys elaborate why you think they would want that?
@cursedGalataea
@cursedGalataea Жыл бұрын
@@fluriekfluriek2913 Universities are for profit and so are researchers at those universities. More attention means more money.
@SoulDelSol
@SoulDelSol Жыл бұрын
So what did you fake your research on
@spawel1
@spawel1 Жыл бұрын
@@fluriekfluriek2913 because it makes them money
@jacobstump4414
@jacobstump4414 Жыл бұрын
That data is honestly so strange. Like, it’s not what I would call “blatantly faked”, and it’s definitely not well hidden. It’s just… weird. The “Harvard” school year in particular is just bizarre. It’s almost like a third party who didn’t even see or understand the study was told to change the data to create the desired result
@jamesdavis3851
@jamesdavis3851 Жыл бұрын
Agreed - Starting the video I expected that data had failed benford's law or similar advanced tests for randomness, but the manipulation is beyond "lazy". Why even maintain the files at that point? Or why not take the 10 seconds to re-sort and strip metadata? It's like making counterfeit nickles on a xerox then trying to sell them to the feds.
@futuza
@futuza Жыл бұрын
ChatGPT would be very good at doing this.
@jairopena1396
@jairopena1396 Жыл бұрын
@@jamesdavis3851 Because they thought no one would bother to carefully inspect it.
@Redskies453
@Redskies453 Жыл бұрын
I know right? Why wouldn't you just sort by smallest after fudging the data? Then it would all be hidden within the set and wouldn't stick out.
@blipblop5757
@blipblop5757 Жыл бұрын
​​​@@jamesdavis3851I am not even angry at her for faking the data. I am angry at her faking it in such a simpleton manner. A 10 year old with basic excel knowledge could do better than her.
@realSpook
@realSpook Жыл бұрын
Did she really make a paper to boost her own ego by calling cheaters 'geniuses'?
@asmyself4021
@asmyself4021 Жыл бұрын
That's what I thought too! She clearly knows what she's doing and wants to feel special about it.
@JavierSalcedoC
@JavierSalcedoC Жыл бұрын
People love to be called demigods and such by academics. Make them feel good in their boring lives
@ARGhostie
@ARGhostie 10 ай бұрын
The sweetness of that ending caught me so off guard it nearly made me tear up. I just realised how that kind of sentiment even towards people who could be deemed 'the enemy' is so valuable.
@Centurion556
@Centurion556 Жыл бұрын
This has been a problem for decades. Alfred Kinseys data was well known to be of poor quality, and he used bad reasoning to extrapolate prison data and misrepresented it as representing the general population.
@whatamievendoing
@whatamievendoing Жыл бұрын
He also used data of nonces touching kids to prove that kids had a sexuality. Kinsey was such a scandal, it's interesting to see him celebrated in modern culture
@KazantheMan579
@KazantheMan579 Жыл бұрын
Whoa there. That's the God of transgenderism you're talking about. You can't do that. Everybody knows that gender ideology is above criticism and scrutiny.
@bissetttom1738
@bissetttom1738 Жыл бұрын
thats like john money who lied about being able to change your identity. it was all a lie while he went around lecturing on the subject using falsified data and now look what we have.
@belove751
@belove751 Жыл бұрын
Comment section did not disappoint 👌🏻❤
@TheMohawkNinja
@TheMohawkNinja Жыл бұрын
Then there's the Lindsay, Pluckrose (and some third researcher) scandal where they purposefully submitted bad research just to show how stupidly easy it is to push bad data into journals despite all of the supposed "peer-review" that should be weeding out all the bad research.
@itsallfunandgames723
@itsallfunandgames723 Жыл бұрын
It is good to bring up the topic of the broken 'publish or perish' system at universities. You must publish papers to stay employed, the only papers that get published are ones where you find a result, find something new. As you have no power over finding a result, that is essentially random, you are instead incentivized by your employer to influence what you can control, which is creating the appearance of finding a result. So long as the system pivots around a factor that professors cannot control, they will be encouraged to cheat as cheating or luck are the only two things that will keep them employed.
@Juscz
@Juscz Жыл бұрын
Extremely swell stated, @installfunandgames!
@BlueCyann
@BlueCyann Жыл бұрын
Same problem exists in industry in a different way. You get handed projects to work on, and maybe that project works out and makes the company a lot of money, or maybe it fails. Whether or not it succeeds has very little to do with the people running the project, usually. For example one analytical development project I had in the pharmaceutical industry -- product failed in formulation and was likely impossible from the get-go under the constraints the company had to operate by. But it was still 18 months of effort from me on the analytical side that yielded me zero that I could report as an accomplishment in performance reviews, or for promotion, or on my resume for other jobs.
@enkiimuto1041
@enkiimuto1041 Жыл бұрын
The only shocking part to me is how sloppy they were on faking data
@DerekCroxtonWestphalia
@DerekCroxtonWestphalia Жыл бұрын
Seriously -- why wouldn't they set the p value to 0.045 or something? I don't know psychology in particular, but having a p value of 0.0001 in itself should be considered a red flag in almost any discipline.
@izzo2998
@izzo2998 Жыл бұрын
That dishonesty/creativity paper is extremely dangerous for society, especially coming from Harvard. We already have corporations ruined because of what their leaders learn at top business schools like Harvard, Penn Yale et all (money above all else, even if you have to fake numbers and cheat and do things nearly-illegally), but having an actual paper from Harvard that basically rewards dishonesty really is scary. Btw: I know someone who went to Harvard. She said the hardest part of Harvard is getting in. Yes the education itself was good, but she felt it wasn't anything "special" beyond the pedigree, and she said she likely could get just a good an education elsewhere.
@UnusuallyLargeCrab
@UnusuallyLargeCrab Жыл бұрын
Im amazed at just HOW doctored this data was. I feel like my community college instructors would have clocked faked data this blatant.
@florkyman5422
@florkyman5422 Жыл бұрын
That's because they're paid to check your work. No one is really paid to check published works like that. It would in fact be detriment to both the journals and universities.
@De5O54
@De5O54 Жыл бұрын
@UnusuallyLargeCrab - I went back and checked your original post before you commented, and it read ‘would have *_choked fake cola_* this blatant.’ Hmmm. p< 0.05 Eh ?!
@eskamobob8662
@eskamobob8662 Жыл бұрын
Right?! That's by far the biggest suprise to me. Reduce the significance and bit and santatize the file I bet there would be 0 proof, but they couldn't even be assed to do that
@stevenverrall4527
@stevenverrall4527 Жыл бұрын
Peer reviewers don't check data and calculations. It is much more about checking descriptive language, methodology, equations, and conclusions. The details are be checked by others post-publication. Being retracted is an academic's worst fear. That fear is what keeps most academics honest.
@mc_v6237
@mc_v6237 Жыл бұрын
The sadest thing about this isn't them merely manipulating the data - it's that a Harvard Prof does worse in creating fake data than basic imputing algorithms
@bennigan88
@bennigan88 Жыл бұрын
Underrated comment!
@tyyamnitz8408
@tyyamnitz8408 Жыл бұрын
Well she is a behavioral scientist…. I wouldn’t exactly consider that the most technical science out there
@fllthdcrb
@fllthdcrb Жыл бұрын
The scary part about this is: she (or whoever altered the data) was only able to be caught like this because she was sloppy. She could have easily re-sorted the sheets, and then it would have been much harder to figure out where the manipulation was. How many people have faked data without making such elementary mistakes?
@yiorgosh4739
@yiorgosh4739 Жыл бұрын
Yes and no. Maybe the manipulation wouldn't have been caught, but as shown in the video, a number of researchers found the results suspicious which means even if they couldn't find problems with her methodology, they would still make a strong point for independent replication with good transparency and then the lack of successful replication would cast doubt on the original studies. Independent replication is a cornerstone of building established scientific knowledge which is why I'm always frustrated with how many people hype up novel scientific findings before enough good research has been done.
@johnpublic6582
@johnpublic6582 Жыл бұрын
@@yiorgosh4739 Yeah, that's a great system. By the time the fake is called after all the later research she has had a prestigeous career and retired rich.
@yiorgosh4739
@yiorgosh4739 Жыл бұрын
@@johnpublic6582I don't know why the sarcasm. Science is a process for better understanding the laws of nature, despite our human biases and failings. There have been many egotistical and shady scientists and doctors throughout history. That's not a hit against the process. To the contrary, the success of science over time speaks to how powerful the process is despite our human bull****. If you want to feel better about someone getting their comeuppance, look elsewhere.
@codyspendlove8986
@codyspendlove8986 Жыл бұрын
Good point. So, what makes us so willing to accept that someone so good at her craft was that skoppy? How do those two thoughts coexist? Isn't it nore likely that she did not alter the data?
@fllthdcrb
@fllthdcrb Жыл бұрын
@@codyspendlove8986 Do we know for absolute certain that she (or, again, whoever it actually was; I don't actually care who) did alter it? Well, no. However, it's at least a plausible explanation for the evidence. What would be your explanation for why spreadsheets that are otherwise sorted in particular ways just happen to have particular rows out of the sorted order, _and_ that those rows just happen to be among the ones contributing the most to the claimed effect, often having most of the extreme values, _and_ that when plausible real values can be hypothesized, substituting those makes the effect disappear completely? And why the weirdly consistent bad answer to the "year in school" question? _And_ this apparently happened at least three times, maybe four (I don't know about the fourth instance alluded to, but presumably there's similar evidence in that case). How likely is this to happen by chance? _How_ does it even happen without tampering? (Seriously, I don't have ideas about alternative explanations; if I did, maybe I could bring them up. If you do, then maybe we can discuss them, because I realize there is a possible cognitive bias here.) Also, just what craft is it she is supposed to be good at? Doing science? Writing academic papers? Sure, those make sense. Altering computer files without leaving forensic evidence? Not necessarily. Not to mention, she may not have thought anyone would bother to look at the raw data, although admittedly I'm not sure why, seeing as the results seemed too good to be true. It is indeed a little baffling to me why someone seemingly so smart would be so sloppy in this one way. (I would like to ask: Do the researchers at Harvard, or at many universities, routinely make files with their raw data accessible as a matter of course or even as an institutional rule, or was it just good fortune that hers could be found? If she really thought no one would ever look at the files, or that they _couldn't_ look at them, then it makes more sense why she wouldn't bother to cover up the anomalies.) Then again, claiming such small p-values in a field like psychology seems suspicious in itself. If the data really was tampered with, that in itself wasn't so smart. Much better to be modest about it, if possible (obviously, p-values aren't necessarily easy to manipulate arbitrarily, but still...). Not, of course, evidence for or against it being fraud, but maybe it helps to answer the question about seemingly contradictory thoughts coexisting.
@rhesaramadhan8474
@rhesaramadhan8474 Жыл бұрын
Well, this year alone, the Chancellor of Stanford got sacked up because he was allegedly manipulating the data of his research 👀
@RobRobertson1000
@RobRobertson1000 Жыл бұрын
As a humble bush accountant, I'm stunned that if someone 'adjusts' a data set in a spreadsheet they do not even have the foresight to re-sort it. Wow. Not that this would have totally hidden the manipulation but it would have made it at least look legit.
@JimBob1937
@JimBob1937 Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's so obvious that it must just be laziness and overconfidence.
@tax1643
@tax1643 Жыл бұрын
I wonder if she didn't re-sort it because the massive fluctuation in values would alert anyone doing a cursory review of her data.
@apricotcomputers3943
@apricotcomputers3943 Жыл бұрын
Stupid is as stupid does😂
@SuperHans700
@SuperHans700 Жыл бұрын
As a former “financial analyst” (accountant), I suspect that the data was auto-sorted originally on a spreadsheet. Then it was pasted into some other source unformatted, removing any links and formulas so they don’t break - standard practice. Then when data was added in, the data wasn’t sorted as expected. Not that I falsified any data, just that this kind of thing is fairly common when editing raw data that has been used/linked elsewhere
@JL-yt5hy
@JL-yt5hy Жыл бұрын
not sure about academia but finance and accountancy have checks in place.
@kevinmoore734
@kevinmoore734 Жыл бұрын
Shocked that Harvard Business School would be associated with dishonest behavior.
@Irishherbs
@Irishherbs Жыл бұрын
lol
@breakupgoogle
@breakupgoogle Жыл бұрын
member harvard had an office for Epstein after his conviction.
@sonjak8265
@sonjak8265 Жыл бұрын
Or Stanford biology
@jagmd
@jagmd Жыл бұрын
I’m glad someone actually investigated her. The social sciences especially have degraded into a collection of opinions being passed as fact.
@davidhimmelfahrt3732
@davidhimmelfahrt3732 Жыл бұрын
Sadly
@TR-ru7wl
@TR-ru7wl Жыл бұрын
That's actually how they started. People are just carrying on a proud tradition.
@mario10zeus
@mario10zeus Жыл бұрын
As a social scientist, I concur.
@mawavoy
@mawavoy Жыл бұрын
It’s not just the social sciences that are at risk. I’m thinking of all the infomercials that begin. “A study at ….. shows…
@grasonicus
@grasonicus Жыл бұрын
“Social Science” is an oxymoron.
@jamesbryant8133
@jamesbryant8133 Жыл бұрын
Results without honesty is pointless work.
@tom9380
@tom9380 Жыл бұрын
As a data scientist, it'd be interesting to check which authors after this revelation tried to pull there datasets from public access. Good indicator to check them out as well.
@blogintonblakley2708
@blogintonblakley2708 Жыл бұрын
Makes me wonder about payoffs to peer reviewed journals.
@tom9380
@tom9380 Жыл бұрын
@@blogintonblakley2708 Hm could you elaborate?
@beyondEV
@beyondEV Жыл бұрын
main trouble isn't even the science fraud. that mostly gets uncovered over time. as wakefield proved: once the fraudulent data has spread, it doesn't really matter if it's shown to be fraudulent. universities and journals both need to go much further: all titles get stripped, and that paper gets marked as fraud but is left up for anyone to see. and yes, there my even have to introduce some basic algorithmic checking (data irregularities, logical fallacy, summary doesn't match actual data) instead of only peer review. the process is simply not designed to detect fraud. (there was the funny case, when a bunch of informatics students submitted some completely nonsensical paper created by a AI. It passed peer review, since basically all reviewer couldn't make sense of it and marked it as:" not really my area of expertise, can't comment".
@Bob_Adkins
@Bob_Adkins Жыл бұрын
​@@tom9380 The whole system is corrupt. The only data or science you can trust is what you gather and analyze yourself. There is too much money and too much tribalism and it corrupts everything.
@felixbertoni
@felixbertoni Жыл бұрын
@@tom9380 I'll try to elaborate in his/her stead, as I share the same concern I think. When a scientific paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, the journal is responsible for reviewing it (usually by sending to other researchers from the same field volunteering for review), which ensures quality of articles. Given how badly done these fake data were forged -assuming they are fake, which they seem to be-, no serious peer reviewed journal should have had accepted those articles. So it raises two hypothesis : - Maybe the Gino and others paid, or used of similar influence on, a journal in order to be published. - Maybe the journal is simply super bad actually. This is quite the problem, since often articles in journals have paid access, meaning journals make money by publishing articles. Even if this practice is subject to debate, because science is often funded by public money, as are volunteering reviewers, and so research results should be free to access, this is often justified by the quality of articles. If one of the two previous hypothesis are true, it would mean that even this justification for paid access to scientific knowledge isn't actually solid, and raises concerns for the quality of all articles published in same journals as those of Gino.
@superchargerone
@superchargerone Жыл бұрын
How can you say her papers are discredited when her paper “Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity” proved her point! 😂
@olivermorin3303
@olivermorin3303 Жыл бұрын
Because she faked the numbers in a very ordinary, boring way. She's not an evil genius if she got caught.
@michaelbuckers
@michaelbuckers Жыл бұрын
Simply editing the data while leaving behind so much breadcrumbs is hardly a creative way to cheat.
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Жыл бұрын
@@olivermorin3303 Yes cause she couldnt be bothered to reorder it proves she fake it! LOL NO! If only she thought to reorder it! LOL
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Жыл бұрын
@@michaelbuckers shes so so thick she didnt think to reorder after editing the results? LOL WHAT A DUMB CLAIM!
@glennleedicus
@glennleedicus Жыл бұрын
What is creative about betraying trust? It’s the easiest form of deceit.
@Joeyw-2203
@Joeyw-2203 Жыл бұрын
I attended a conference several years ago regarding Usability and Security on behalf of the company I was working for at the time, Google. One of the papers at the conference was a fraud study of another large internet company, which I'd worked for previously, so I was excited to see the talk and what the professors had concluded based on their extensive, data driven study of my previous employer. It was all a sham. The study presented finding and sweeping claims which were verifiably false. They presented charts and graphs with "projections", meaning they'd fabricated all of their data instead of finding a data source or simply working with the company in viable data sets. The talk contained no actual data sources or reliable citations at all associated with the company or even a third party with knowledge of the company. It was shocking to say the least, because this was a tenured professor at a top university, presenting the results of a peer reviewed paper. He'd cheated on his homework.
@stevengordon3271
@stevengordon3271 Жыл бұрын
And nobody called him out?
@newafricanforum
@newafricanforum Жыл бұрын
​@stevengordon3271 Nobody does. First because everybody trusts credentials and two, it is just a circus, those who could call him out were also cooking data in their own kitchen. 😅
@degen83
@degen83 Жыл бұрын
Those sort of talks used to be more fact based but in the past 20 years they have gone far more political biased and outright lying about the science and facts to push some agenda they have. Either they make money for pushing these lies (investments from Blackrock and other DEI financial institutions) or some political favors (Democrats voting against regulations that would adverssely effect them) or some other thing. The bias is real and we the people must reject this and hold them all accountable for their lies. Its ok to be wrong about conclusions if you are honestly trying and get a projection wrong. But it is not acceptable if you base your projections off of a political or personal bias.
@taylorcasale680
@taylorcasale680 3 ай бұрын
It’s also astonishing how blatant her cheating was. Even someone with a modicum of skill at Excel could have hid these cheats. Fraud is like a cockroach. For every one you see there are more that you don’t.
@drmadjdsadjadi
@drmadjdsadjadi Жыл бұрын
We absolutely need a journal of insignificant results to be one of the most respected journals in academia.
@elizepsy
@elizepsy Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately grey literature wouldn't sell as good as "50 shades of Grey" 🫠
@darkpheonix77
@darkpheonix77 Жыл бұрын
It's interesting tho to consider how that could lead to problems. Perhaps paper gets publish to said journal far to easily and are just a quick way to make money. Perhaps people use a large set of studies on there to dismiss new findings, without considering it. I'm not saying either of these would happen but considering if they could is worth while if we are going to push for it. What I can say will happen is that people of certain philosophy would hate a journal like this as it would "entrench norms and social social construct as real"
@drmadjdsadjadi
@drmadjdsadjadi Жыл бұрын
@@darkpheonix77 Papers already get published far too easily as is evidenced by the hundreds that must get retracted each year. It is highly unlikely that such a journal will need retractions since it is pretty clear that significance is still what everyone chases. The primary idea of a journal of insignificant results would be to push back on that and actually to get people to do replication studies.
@samszotkowski
@samszotkowski Жыл бұрын
I don't think it should be up to the authors, or even the reviews, whether a paper be deemed significant to the field
@lVideoWatcherl
@lVideoWatcherl Жыл бұрын
@darkphoenix77 Just create a publicly-owned repository. An university-led infrastructure. It is simply rather improbable that a for-profit organization will ever be interested in honest academics over well-craftdd cheating. This would also have the effect of breaking into this overall very absurd and ridiculous 'market' of academic publishing. With how much public money is in research, it's simply absurd to have to _pay_ a journal to publish your findings, only for other public institutions to then _also_ have to pay to receive the largely publically funded conclusions. Just create an open access repository, have the peer Review be an additional task for tenured professors and voilà - you have your counter-weight.
@AdrienLegendre
@AdrienLegendre Жыл бұрын
Francesca Gino should pivot to where she is best qualified, a political career.
@SerbanCMusca-ut8ny
@SerbanCMusca-ut8ny Жыл бұрын
Getting that high in the academia food chain is more or less the equivalent to becoming a governor, I'd say, so you are not wrong suggesting what you suggest...
@haroldbridges515
@haroldbridges515 Жыл бұрын
Not sympathetic to your sympathy for Gino's cheating. All cheaters cheat for some benefit to themselves at the expense of others. Gino has more security as a tenured professor than nearly any other professional. Any "pressure" she felt was nothing more than greed for prestige and fame. Academics aren't automatically morally superior to others.
@travisporco
@travisporco Жыл бұрын
I agree. There is NO excuse for it under any circumstances and for any reason.
@johnpayne7873
@johnpayne7873 Жыл бұрын
There's nothing virtuous in bending over backwards to defend the indefensible. Neither is it compassionate to make up excuses and rationalizations for others.
@algm9167
@algm9167 Жыл бұрын
He just screwed it at the very last minute of the video. Had he stopped at 18:50 I would have liked it a lot more😢
@sammyfromsydney
@sammyfromsydney Жыл бұрын
I think he just doen't want to be responsible for pushing her further in the direction of doing something self destructive. Cut him some slack. If he published this video and she took drastic steps he would feel terrible and people would blame him.
@sunway1374
@sunway1374 Жыл бұрын
I agree. Academic cheating is not just harmless cheating to get papers published. It should be a crime. The cheaters effectively steal money from bodies who fund their research, the universities who pay their salaries, people who pay for their speaking fees, etc. Furthermore their promotions in their careers and the promotions of people who coauthored with them robbed those truly honest researchers of opportunities to pursue their ambitions. The cheaters don't just damage the fields, they damage live and livelihood of real people too.
@matthewstewart5113
@matthewstewart5113 Жыл бұрын
Wow, people lie for money, power, fame. SHOCKED!
It's Over - Gino vs Harvard Fake Data Scandal
15:30
Pete Judo
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Declining Value of Papers in Academia
21:59
ChuScience
Рет қаралды 357 М.
요즘유행 찍는법
0:34
오마이비키 OMV
Рет қаралды 12 МЛН
Andro, ELMAN, TONI, MONA - Зари (Official Audio)
2:53
RAAVA MUSIC
Рет қаралды 8 МЛН
번쩍번쩍 거리는 입
0:32
승비니 Seungbini
Рет қаралды 182 МЛН
Literally the worst scientist in history
13:24
Pete Judo
Рет қаралды 192 М.
My dream died, and now I'm here
13:41
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 3,3 МЛН
Academia is BROKEN! - Stanford President Scandal Explained
14:34
Pete Judo
Рет қаралды 1,1 МЛН
Harvard Fake Data Scandal - HUGE NEW DEVELOPMENT
20:30
Pete Judo
Рет қаралды 458 М.
The Fall of a Leading Behavioural Scientist
11:43
Coach Danny
Рет қаралды 213 М.
This Cornell Scientist Destroyed His Career in One Blog Post
13:19
The Harvard Scam: How Elite Schools Steal From You
17:18
More Perfect Union
Рет қаралды 447 М.
The Fall of a Superstar Psychologist
21:34
quant
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
The scandal that shook psychology to its core
29:35
Neuro Transmissions
Рет қаралды 371 М.
DoubleSpeak, How to Lie without Lying
16:15
What I've Learned
Рет қаралды 11 МЛН