Harvard Fake Data Scandal - HUGE NEW DEVELOPMENT

[@PeteJudo1]

Go to www.piavpn.com/PeteJudo to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!

[@esecallum]

you need to investigate all the fake papers research by bigpharma on their drugs...400k patients die every year

[@esecallum]

no mention of the massive data fraud in the MRNA vaccines roll out and the huge excess deaths?

[@Sevrmark]

Re PIA and Netflix : Lies. It doesn't work reliably, if at all.

[@grbradsk]

Not in any way associated with Harvard, but its got somewhere around 2,400 professors. If a dozen of the loud ones are DEI political hires and a few social science ones fake it to make it. It doesn't make the whole institution false. Hell, the percentage of lying philandering preachers is way higher.

[@gepisar]

i made mention in the general comments: 8:10 "37"... if you know... you know... and if you DO know, you will know that "37" is THE random number of choice. WHICH , if one were looking to fudge the data and get a better result than 79%, then "what target" number would be a good number.. One apparenlty random? its like asking to pick a random number between 1 and 79... and is soooo strange that the "results" come out to the random number of choice!

[@endcensorship874]

Wonder if they made her sign her testimony at the top.

[@LilmissJ111]

Oh my goodness! That was priceless!😂🤣

[@danielschein6845]

🤣🤣🤣 Best comment ever!

[@downey2294]

made me chuckle

[@EricaTheScientist]

DAMN

[@uthoshantm]

I asked myself the exact same question

[@grondhero]

"One of the best things about going to Harvard is that, for the rest of your life, you are neither intimidated nor impressed by people who went to Harvard." - Thomas Sowell I'm doubting her integrity by the way she responded, blaming sexism and 'sabotage' by a female co-author. I wonder if the research money made them cut corners or present this instead of redoing the entire study, considering they found discrepancies early on?

[@damianketcham]

Love for Sowell.

[@robertenn6818]

Isnt the usual practice, to test the correctness of a claim to replicate it and see if the results confirm it. Instead of first co demning the author is dishonest.

[@grondhero]

@@robertenn6818 Supposed to be. According to the video, she was _upset_ that the other team found discrepancies and she apparently ignored them. 🤷‍♂

[@JenSell1626]

Or work there, then you can walk away anonymously

[@nancygawlowicz2562]

Isn't Sowell marvelous? He always has exactly the right observations. Absolutely a unique and precious mind.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

"A 1,300 pages report". By Harvard on this blatant fraud case. There's a subject for some serious behavioral studies right there!

[@winstongludovatz111]

View one mountain of garbage from the top of another.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

@@winstongludovatz111If we stack enough garbage mountains on top of each other maybe we can reach for the stars!? Though obviously we'd just add trash they produce to our piles. What else could garbage-hoarders do with stars?

[@danielschein6845]

Not at all. If you are going to accuse your star celebrity professor of fraud you better show absolutely every shred of evidence you’ve got and make sure there is no innocent explanation. If they had accused her and she could credibly claim innocence they would be toast.

[@Benjamin1986980]

The one thing I don't get is how it took five top level academics to do this research, when the actual data collection is on the level of an elementary school science fair.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

Because one has to be highly uneducated to succeed with it! They comfortably belong to the same "class" and are protecting each others' interests. They are not truly independent curious individuals like a true researcher such as Galileo Galilei once was while doing real research. They are ritual bureaucrats in an institution with a salary and kids at home. It's behavioral. @@Benjamin1986980

[@ekszentrik]

People somehow have the impression Harvard will always be a highly prestigious university, when we can see its reputation crumble in real time.

[@joe-el7iw]

go woke = you're broke(n).

[@ganymede7366]

If a research assistant made a mistake, and the research staff did not vet through the data before submitting it, whose fault is it?

[@juliankohler5086]

Harvard's "Veritas" has become rather ironic.

[@AmenProletar]

More like fakitas now

[@Walczyk]

@@AmenProletarstill more trustworthy than project veritas

[@itsgonnabeanaurfromme]

​@@AmenProletar😐

[@WayneLynch69]

As a Crimson has said, "For the remainder of my life I will wonder how Whitaker Chambers go into my house to use my typewriter".

[@Archie-td6ox]

But everything she says is "virtually" true!

[@annagracehilton1410]

Personally, I don't care if it was one of her co-authors or not. To publish a scientific paper, you have to sign your name saying you agree to all the claims and that you read it over. Clearly, she didn't do her duty reading it over.

[@ps.2]

Clearly, *the five authors* didn't do *their* duty reading it over. Fixed it for you. By your logic, why single out Prof. Gino?

[@nomadr1349]

@@ps.2 There is always the "corresponding author", the one who is responsible for the paper as a whole. Guess she was the one here. But true, all of this bunch look shady...

[@mattymattffs]

​@@ps.2more often than not there is a lead/main author.

[@MarleeRavenscroft]

She should have checked the data.

[@davidjulitz7446]

Why she should do? The results were in her favor. I really don't want to know how much scam we are now facing in science? Fact is, only people who publish astonishing results will be promoted. The whole academic field is infested.

[@excep7]

I'm a lawyer. Saying "we're excited to present her defense in court" means they don't have shit. Because if there were really something to it, they would already put it out there.

[@kayakMike1000]

Wait... Gino is not the defendant, she would be the plaintiff in the defamation case. Why would the plantiff be excited to present a defense?

[@excep7]

@kayakMike1000 I didn't listen to the attorney's quote again, he was referring to her defense of Harvard's allegations. She's functionally the defendant on those issues

[@meesalikeu]

speaking of lying “i’m a lawyer” 😂

[@Nwolf5555]

@@kayakMike1000 At the 20min mark this is made pretty clear, its Gino´s team talking about defending her against Harvard's accusation of data fraud.

[@excep7]

@@meesalikeu haha how can I prove it to you

[@pisceananarchyvortex7223]

If they started screening out the professors with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not only would there hardly be any professors left, but all of the drama would go away and everyone could get a real education again.

[@martymcfly1776]

The problem with that argument is that most classes aren't taught by professors any more. They are taught by grad students, post docs, and sundry other academic migrants.

[@ghosthunter0950]

I find that generally with math and STEM professors this happens a lot less often. there is a good population of them that are just genuinely excited about their field and while they find teaching students a bit of a pain, understandably. they're willing to do it because they want to prop up their field more.

[@VolumePerfection]

Except it is not always easy to detect and others figure it out. This test won't help

[@tt-ew7rx]

If you screen historical figures with that, we'd still be living in caves.

[@Slitheringpeanut]

'Again'?

[@artmosley3337]

Harvard… they actually Wrote The BOOKS on how to manipulate everything!!! From Law to Phycology -science, business, …. A 1,300 page report 😂😂😂.. suing Harvard 😂😂.. the Fact that 700+ professors signed a letter saying Not to fire the president Gay after her congressional testimony, pretty much sums it all up… beautiful buildings filled with snakes 🐍

[@DrCruel]

To be fair, all the Ivy League schools are like this. That super-high tuition is just a ticket to the crook club.

[@RawOlympia]

Yes, all illusion and rot ~~

[@DrCruel]

@@RawOlympia Not all illusion. The Asian students are usually quite brilliant, but they stay away from the Left fascists and go back to their home country after receiving their degree.

[@romanmichaelhamilton8729]

@@DrCruel Precisely. Imagine a John Kerry, Bush 2, Biden, Clinton (LOL, the Rhodes Scholar), Eddie Munster (err Paul Ryan) etc. trying to an engineering course in a German or Japanese university. ;-)

[@davidturner1641]

one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in human history

[@princeoftheblues]

My father was a Harvard professor of psychology. Let me tell you, as a person who grew up meeting many eminent psychologists, this is a field which is a magnet for cheats, fakes and nuts. Not to mention the egotistical maniacs. The body of knowledge consists mainly of people's opinions. We call that a 'soft' science. To my father's credit he tried to elevate the field by applying statistical analysis. But compared to chemist they know almost nothing. That's why they get away with murder. She was just dumb enough to fake data. Many of them just make naked assertions. They are never caught.

[@meesalikeu]

oh please drink a glass of water 😂

[@Grrrnthumb]

Absolutely! Really it seems the *majority* of this type of psych "science" is bogus. It fits a recognizable pattern. Take any study that demonstrates a surprising but interesting conclusion that might get cited/featured by media, especially one that fits the pattern of 'wow, so interesting, but it fits my world view & verifies something that has always bugged me'. Most of these are junk. So easy to tweak the results. They only get caught when they are the most egregious in stretching the truth or the most incompetent at it.

[@MrJeffcoley1]

“Social science” is an oxymoron. Dressing up subjective observations with the mathematical and statistical trappings of hard science doesn’t make it science. It’s like using a caliper to measure a marshmallow.

[@lobstermash]

Not all psychology is soft. Stuff about the brain (perception, cognition) is much better than social psychology.

[@MrJeffcoley1]

@@lobstermash And it isn’t “social science”

[@douginorlando6260]

So the female co-author can now sue Gino $25 million for defamation and being sexist

[@robertd9965]

Love that idea. Hope Nina Mazar reads this. :)

[@alicedoors4826]

haha uh-oh

[@rcarlson8203]

Black people can't be racist, women can't be sexist, it's basic math.

[@erin9868]

It's not sexist just bc she's a woman. The allegations against her weren't tied to her gender in any way.

[@paulbork7647]

This is just evoking female privilege. When something doesn’t go their way, some are stoic, some cry and some cry sexist.

[@DarkKitarist]

Lol she's crying sexism, then turns around and blames another woman... yup.

[@nickjohnson410]

Shocking!

[@DarkKitarist]

@@nickjohnson410 Honestly I wouldn't say anything, you can blame anyone you want if you have proof that harm was done to you. But since she started her defense with "Blatant sexism..." and then progresses to blaming another woman, that's just funny yo...

[@weeb3277]

you shouldn't ask a woman her age and where she got the data for her papers

[@DarkKitarist]

@@weeb3277 That might have been true back in the day, and I know you're half joking. But if the drama in the Minecraft community has thought me anything in the past few weeks it's that not only do you absolutely have to ask a woman her age, but you also have to have an attorney and notary ob call at all times so that you're able to create and sign a contract in triplicate if you don't want to be called a Sexual Assaultist or worse...

[@deanfirnatine7814]

Look at Professor Gay, when caught she blamed racism yet she personally tried to destroy the career of a fellow Black academic because his factual findings did not align with her political ideology, she also plagiarized her work from several other Black scholars.

[@patavinity1262]

"The only reason they're accusing me of this is SEXISM" **Proceeds to throw female colleague under the bus**

[@hrvojelasic5794]

for the 25m USD that she intends to get, people here and there make few compromises🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@RonKris]

...ignoring the fact two of the four people in the research were men, and Gino states she felt she was in the middle of them *the two male researchers* in disputes about the data, and didn't accuse them of sexism and altering the data, but accused her female colleague, but calls the three men that brought this to light as sexist.

[@patavinity1262]

@@RonKris That's not really the point because she's a total fraud and crying sexism is just a pathetic excuse to shift the blame but *even so* she clearly tried to divert more of the criticism onto her female colleague than anyone else.

[@josephayooluwa8802]

Exactly my thought.

[@josephayooluwa8802]

If she were black, racism will be part of the accusation.

[@stacypastry2440]

This childish behavior of cheating your way and playing the victim when you get caught needs to have real consequences or it will continue to grow. Harvard itself needs to suffer real consequences for allowing such nonsense while raking in donations and extraordinary tuitions

[@Cloud_Seeker]

Continue to grow? My man. That has been going for more then a decade at this point. Playing the victim is the name of the game today.

[@bobbyfeet2240]

Good god, Harvard. You can't redact just the names and leave all the obvious other identifiers like jobs. In medical research, we'd first be laughed at and then face charges for that.

[@StimParavane]

@@andyk2181 Lol!

[@asnark7115]

Now THAT's an ironic statement. There is no field afloat on so many bogus conclusions and fake data as the medical research field. Did you sleep through the last 4 years?

[@ShankarSivarajan]

Didn't the US DoJ do something like that with Trump, calling him "Individual 1"?

[@BecPlumbe]

Totally agree: this was not a serious attempt at privacy. HBS must have internal procedures for this level of breach of privacy - I hope there is (at minimum) internal follow up. Transparency is vital, but that doesn’t mean no other rules apply.

[@chrisalmighty]

I'm an auditor in healthy care companies but I was similarly thinking the same. We call that "pseudo-anonymised" data. You would be in trouble for that kind of thing regarding data privacy and confidentiality.

[@wetwingnut]

I'm pretty old. Old enough that I remember that when I was young, being caught in a lie meant the end of a scientific, academic, journalistic, or even political career. It was such a hard principle, that I remember Walter Cronkite freaking out on the air when he realized that he had just reported something that was passed on to him that had not been verified and might not be true. He looked terrified. Today, it's no big deal.

[@omidalavi2333]

she's being fired...

[@Galahad54]

Today, it's a career enhancer. Until/unless the s hits the fan.

[@Richard-or9rt]

If you are whyte man, certainly is. For women? You might get slapped down, but You will quickly appear on someone else's payroll.

[@el80ne]

I don't get how your comment applies to the subject of this story. She is no longer employed by Harvard. Unless she can produce evidence in a court of law that her collaborator sabotaged her work her career is over. So to your point, some things never change.

[@chrisjackson1215]

@@omidalavi2333 And then she'll sue - regardless of whether she wins or not she'll become a celebrity and make tens of millions giving speeches about her BS theories and sexism in society. As they said; it's consequence free.

[@nicolasbourbaki8896]

As a former research scientist in an adjacent field, this YT game me flashbacks. I have personally seen/read papers were I knew for sure data was tampered with. However as being a lowly PhD student at the time, I was advised to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to have a career in my field.

[@Maxine.Demian]

What field and what type of manipulation? I read recently that p value manipulation is pretty common

[@anonymousme927]

There is something called anonymous whistleblowing! You should look it up.

[@falrus]

@@Maxine.Demian p-hacking is one of the most "innocent" types of manipulation. Data fraud (fake data) is much much worse.

[@meesalikeu]

sure thats not vague

[@aharonsidorov5145]

Are you in a position to come out with it now? Exposing this can be a real contribution to science. Maybe you can anonymously bring this to Data Colada?

[@freedomspeech9523]

"Behavior" and "Science" don't belong together.

[@maxleveladventures]

“Their accusations are sexist! I didn’t lie. It was my female co-author!” What the fuck…?

[@Kris-fd9xs]

She signed it as author so who cares? Defame someone else in your own defamation case why don't you, after writing your name at the top 🎉 Obviously some people don't care where they put their name 😂

[@THE_CDN]

She just thinks she's above everyone else and should never be questioned.

[@Brommear]

Maybe someone is a lesbian here?

[@billcarruth8122]

Maybe Gina should have had her colleages fill out an honesty pledge before joining the team, rather than after.

[@michaelbloomer451]

Brilliant!

[@RavenMobile]

Lol, best comment here.

[@scubasteve3032]

And then promptly put it in a real shredder.

[@teresabenson3385]

I'm actually impressed that Harvard followed through with a real investigation, not just a cover-up!

[@ColdHawk]

The data guys must’ve presented them with an airtight case. Since it was damning, and was going to go public one way or another, a “thorough investigation” was the only way to preserve themselves.

[@xyzzyx7812]

she isn't the double-protected class like the president of color a few months ago

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

She's the wrong colour for a coverup.

[@ThorneWorthington]

Gino is whiite enough to be fired. Heterose xual whiite women rank really low on the totem pole of Perma-Victims of whiite supre macist intersec tional syste mic fascisty racism-osity.

[@orwellknew9112]

@@offshoretomorrow3346. Really? There is a right colour? What colour is she? Well, I guess the Gender card is not playable right now, so the Race card must come out. Of course, one might conclude you believe that a cover-up was the right course of action in the first place.

[@richardokeefe7410]

8:00 or slightly before. So they were studying honesty by lying to their subjects? Words fail me.

[@AshishDalela]

So they cheated in a study that involved cheating the cheaters.

[@rasmussonderriis]

Here is another defense she can try: "Hey, come on, at Harvard not just me but everyone is a charlatan!"

[@CR_92]

Ahhh the ole' "just following orders" defense.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

It must be emotional to have your personal heroes suspected/revealed as frauds. I wish you the best and thank you for your integrity Pete.

[@hydrohasspoken6227]

Only if you are a softie.

[@MassimoAngotzi]

My personal heroes are Einstein, Fermi, Poincaré, Cauchy. Not these clowns. Choose better your heroes, they say something also about you.

[@7ismersenne]

@@MassimoAngotziFor sure. Calling them "clowns" is going light on them, mate. They are entitled poseurs.

[@mappingtheshit]

@@MassimoAngotziwho asked you? You think you are important enough to showcase us your opinion? What a joke you are

[@RavenMobile]

@@MassimoAngotzi Nikola Tesla and Mohandas Gandhi were probably my two biggest heroes growing up.

[@woolfel]

let just be blunt, Harvard isn't better at teaching students or is a better school. It is has more prestige, but that's not directly related to learning. Harvard is a gate keeper of power and wealth. Go there if you want to get stinking rich and rub shoulders with rich kids. if you want to learn, go to a state school that focuses on teaching and not prestige or research.

[@blogdesign7126]

Agreed!

[@MaxMustermann-bm7qt]

In top universities, the focus leans more towards research than teaching. However, excellent research requires well-prepared students, who either benefit from engaging lectures or undertake intensive self-study. My former university maintains high student standards during the bachelor's program by failing 45% and scheduling exams at the end of the summer break, not the beginning.

[@themartdog]

Are you saying this as someone who went to an Ivy League school? Or are you just making assumptions?

[@richardarriaga6271]

State schools have the same problem because they want to be in elite research institutions.

[@chipcook5346]

@@themartdog So, you have to be an Ivy to observe and judge an Ivy? Nice try. The SS Lived Truth sailed in 2017.

[@GiacomoSorbi]

Major red flag: calling for sexism when there was no hint of it - a typical trait of a dark triad personality.

[@DaffyDuckTheWizzard]

This is a whole second season of drama. I'm so drawn to this story. I need to know how it ends

[@wtfroflffs]

On a very basic level, I think putting your name to a document means you must accept the consequences of its publication, both good and bad.

[@denidale4701]

This reminds me so much of a study I had to do in my masters together with other students. The results of our survey were non-conclusive to the extent that because of badly participants filling out the survey incompletely or wrong, our sample sizes became too small and they didn't even prove any hypothesis. We were a group of 5 people and we split the paper up by steps. One person wrote the theory part, another the methods part, I wrote the data assembly and the data processing and yet another person the evaluation of the data and the conclusion. The person writing the theory part insisted that we fake our data to get the results we need. The person doing the methodological part insisted that we portray the correct results but omit that our sample sizes were too small. So that we pretend the study is conclusive and valid. The person writing the conclusion and evaluation started writing their part before I even finished compiling the data. As it was a survey taken before and after an intervention as well as a third survey at the end, raw data had 3x the entries than there were participants. They used that 3x data to evaluate the study, wish was crazy. It ended up with me insisting that I will not lie and that i will do the data processing correctly, which will show that we have too little entries and that even if using statistics for small sample sizes, none of our hypothesis were valid. Secondly I went to the professor and told him that I wanted his insight into the data collected as it was too bad to produce valid results. So that the others couldn't fudge the data anymore as I provided him everything. Lastly I asked him that the paper to be graded separately by the parts we contributed, not as an overall group grade. Then I told the others that they can write whatever they want in their parts, I will not even read it as I don't want any part in it. The end result was that the person who did the evaluation from using descriptive statistics on the wrong (3x) data set got a grade not much worse than mine. I went and asked the professor as to why my grade was so low and if I did errors in my statistical approach. He explained that in the contrary, I was more diligent than I had needed and that I put extreme efforts into finding a way to process the data in a valid way despite the collected data itself being questionable. I was transparent and did the best I could with the data we had and even produced some interesting insights despite the quality of the data being so bad. However he could not grade me very highly because my presentation was hard to read. Think of him wanting "p=.58" and me writing ".58 (p)". I understand that there are conventions on how to write things, but it is telling that I could present perfectly fine and correct data in a still readable way and get graded the same as someone who falsifies data, evaluates the wrong data and even in doing so never does more than descriptive statistics on a data set that needed multivariate analysis to even answer the research question. But their presentation was flawless. This sends the wrong signals to students if you can get the same or even better grades by writing total bullshit but making it sound good as someone actually putting in effort to get things correctly but failing to write it down in the conventional way.

[@kmbbmj5857]

One thing I learned in school was that in the fuzzy fields that required a lot of writing (lit, history, any of the social "sciences") that the best grades came from the best BS. Knowing the topic and correct answers counted for far less that telling the professor what they wanted to hear in the most overblown way possible got higher grades.

[@craigbenz4835]

The way of universities is that nearly everyone is some sort of, to borrow from Alice Cooper, stumbling demented child-king.

[@Richard-or9rt]

This brings back memories of my first attempt at writing my Masters thesis. I received my first corrected chapter back from my thesis supervisor and it was just a mess of red ink with "WTF" and question marks and arrows and scratched out sentences. It was pretty brutal. However, I did learn one thing. You simply can't use words like "maybe", "possibly", and other non-committal terms. It also becomes a confusing mess if you try to be your own Devil's Advocate in the same document. You MUST select what you think is the most likely conclusion and argue it as well as you can, even if you have your doubts. That professor was 100% correct.

[@tinfoilhomer909]

On the contraty, it sends the right signals. Why be honest when you can be rich?

[@AscDrew]

Exactly. Academics cares more about Form (conformity) than substance (productivity/valid results). I had a leadership program. Wrote lots of papers, APA writing style. Had the same professor for most classes; getting As. Had 1 class with Dean of that program and got a B or C on the term paper saying I butchered APA citations. Sounds like he had a problem with his professor not teaching me correctly (if so) cause I did the citations the same way on all my papers. And obviously anyone in that field could easily track where my quotes and concepts were cited from (they were all cited). Never any criticism of the content or context of my ideas/analysis, just the “form” was wrong. Give me a F’n break! In my final class of the BS program. Dean didn’t give 2 sh*ts if I learned anything in the class and program only as long as APA paper style was strictly conformed to. (Citations made, just not in the exact list/format order he wanted). Dumb! Lost respect for their program after that. I don’t care if its in crayons on a napkin as long as I can distinguish the author’s ideas from someone else’s and give credit to others for their content.

[@cameronleong4559]

As someone with no connection to Harvard or academia, these videos are very interesting and entertaining. Great work!

[@donaldsmith6814]

The study on honesty started out with a lie about the shredding of documents. O.K.

[@aaronhume5335]

Harvard seems to lead in marketing scandal as a feature of their excellence

[@FightSceneFilmSchool]

How do I get one of these enemies who sabotages my career by helping me become one of the most famous people in my field, allows me to make a couple million in public speaking fees & book deals, and lets it go on for a decade before getting to the actual negative part of their plan?

[@SeeAndDreamify]

"Good, twice the pride double the fall."

[@prabhukavi9779]

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

[@themartdog]

These types of studies already seem total nonsense to me anyway. Like, you have a bunch of people in a room who have signed up for a study and know they are being studied. That already basically makes the study questionable. On top of that you're only doing it on like 100 people? Why are papers like this even considered valid science in the first place?

[@p.bckman2997]

That's my thought too. The study looks really easy to do and replicate, the only complex bit being the faux shredder. If you suspect your data isn't good, you could really easily run the experiment again as long as you have your shredder. As a field scientist (biology), I can't fathom why there isn't thousands of data points, not a 100.

[@charlesmanning3454]

@@p.bckman2997 Currently the way psychology is commonly done having 1000 data points probably wouldn't be much more informative than 100 because they would come from undergraduates at some university in north America who know they were participating in psychology experiment. To get more generalizable data would be hard, expensive and still not very useful because social attitudes about pledges on forms could change in unpredicted ways. Biology is hard because it's complicated, psychology is more complicated and requires informed consent.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

It can work if the apparent topic being studied is unrelated to the actual study. People will skew the apparent results while the actual results could still be meaningful.

[@themartdog]

@@thomasmaughan4798 in theory, yes. In practice, the people who sign up for these studies, especially when they are that small, are other psychology students in the researcher's dept. So, they are already wiser about the study techniques

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@themartdog "So, they are already wiser about the study techniques" And thus, nearly meaningless results 🙂

[@houndofzoltan]

She's lying through her teeth and I was never very impressed with Dan Aierly's intellect either.

[@spayced]

A lot of the "co-authors" claim to have never seen it, which is bizarre. Apparently padding extra authors helps claim credit if it goes well and deny involvement if it goes poorly. Reflects poorly on the academic process overall when everybody immediately claims they performed zero oversight.

[@blogdesign7126]

They never written the papers themselves but a "Ghost Author" did? Yes London Real I remember them when they had David Icke there for an interview.

[@xplorethings]

@@spayced To be fair it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for most authors on a paper to never have seen data or how experiments actually went. Many authors are there simply because they were in advisory roles or had minor contributions to possibly all sorts of subtasks. Just because you end up in the author list doesn't mean you had oversight or knowledge of, well, anything, really.

[@danaveye3977]

From the paper If any of the authors only performed minor work and did not involve themselves in the data, then they had their chance to disclose that in the above.

[@danaveye3977]

And on the back of that, here is this rather ironic reference from that paper. Fair bit of motivated dumping into the forgettery going on.

[@cesargatica2630]

Thanks so much for staying on top of this. We know the mainstream media won’t

[@TheGbelcher]

These findings never get awards but is arguably the most important aspect of science communication. Great content. Thank you so much for sharing. Keep up the great work.

[@uselessDM]

Does it all even matter? Her name is on a paper that is obviously scientifically worthless, if not an outright scam and even if she had nothing to do with the manipulation (which is already very unlikely), she still must have seen that it's not a paper that should be released. So she either didn't care at all about the content of the paper or she knew and signed off on it because she knew it would make for great headlines. Either way there is a massive misconduct on her part.

[@stevenverrall4527]

The same can be said of her coauthors.

[@stevenverrall4527]

None of them should be teaching.

[@itsgonnabeanaurfromme]

Yes it matters. Obviously

[@p.bckman2997]

@@stevenverrall4527 , in all fairness, Max Bazerman _did_ make some noise about it, if only internally. I he felt the data was suspect, he should have withdrawn from the study.

[@lellyparker]

This is inconsistent. If she should have noticed the errors then they were too obvious. If she tampered with the data, why would she make such glaringly obvious mistakes? None of this adds up. The changes to the data are so bad it makes me doubt she changed it simply because I think she would have done a much better job. But who knows?

[@lizxu322]

After watching the Veritaserum video on 37, it's hilarious they chose to make it 37%. "Its a random looking number! Choose it"

[@darchinova]

Had her as a lecturer before - clear Narcissist, hence no surprise lies exist and glad they're now revealed.

[@JimJohnson-w4p]

It seems to be a golden age for malignant narcissists. The damage these parasites are causing to institutions and society as a whole is incalculable.

[@theinfjgoyim5508]

As someone who worked as a Direct of Data Analytics for like 10 years now... This is called Normal. Cheat then Lie. It works every time.

[@papertape7911]

Not this time buster!

[@ivani3237]

@ThePowerMoves it's mean - first you have an idea, and second - you choose (or make up) data which support your idea

[@pebblepod30]

Please tell us more about your experience in this!! Thanks in advance. Great to see fraud busted.

[@MechMK1]

Happens in Speedrunning too. Someone gets caught, and at first they claim "I have no idea why my run looks suspicious". Then they claim they're the victim of a witch hunt and that everyone is just jealous of them. Then they admit that they cheated only this one run and that it's really not a big deal. Then they admit that they cheated all their runs for years, but only because they were feeling depressed. And then they get banned.

[@Readabookfoofoo]

In that case, let’s publish your evidence. I’ll be happy to help.

[@gillbates999]

Why are they excited to present information in court as part of her DEFENSE when she is the PLAINTIFF?

[@guard13007]

13:53 This is why every time I have to censor a document for privacy, I replace all censored information with an exact amount of blank space. Each piece is replaced by an amount that is significantly longer than the longest section, and all are the exact same length. People for some reason consistently think length of words is not information, but it is so so ridiculously easy to uncensor text from length alone.

[@arielspalter7425]

Tbh, I have no faith in the integrity of any of them.

[@daizee106]

Good call

[@stischer47]

Ah yes, back in the day when "Harvard" and "research" equaled "honesty"...now it means "lie through your teeth" and "blame everyone else"

[@nicolasbourbaki8896]

Not just Harvard. I would say it is a common practice today. Publish or perish, fosters bad incentives.

[@timop6340]

Agree. Nobody wants to fund basic fuck around and be honest what you found -science. Only huge spectacles and people who have been spectacular. Then everyone acts surprised when the effects of conflicts of interest arise...

[@bryck7853]

when they kept out too many Asians because they happen to have a positive culture of academic achievement.

[@internethero83]

@@bryck7853 this is only china i suppose, but most of them are here going to grad school because their higher education system is so corrupt and shitty. it's the same with india and their issue with giving people straight up fake degrees

[@echochamber.]

There’s a good chance it’s significantly better now if you think about it

[@tayzonday]

I want to know more about the resume of the consultant who gets paid to spend 11 months and 1300 pages investigating this 🤔

[@hnktbt]

god i had the same thought, like whose job was this to make?? i could never but if that's the career they wanted they must be thriving now lol

[@tayzonday]

@@hnktbt Not that any invoice bothers Harvard, but that has to be at least a $5 million “consulting” bill.

[@RN1441]

Dear diary, today I encountered a wild Tay Zonday in the comments section of a video discussing data integrity scandals at Harvard. I'm going to go listen to chocolate rain.

[@themartdog]

They are probably mostly lawyers. Considering they probably knew an accusation like this would lead to, say, a $25 million lawsuit, they had to be thorough

[@luszczi]

Is it already the time when you can post normal comments without people freaking out?

[@yaweno9555]

Excellent unbiased account of what transpired. And I learned a little about self-consistency bias on top of that. Thank you.

[@DemetriosMPapadakes]

The irony. Plot twist: the real honesty experiment is on whether or not Harvard, the lawyers, the accused, and the defendants, as well as the public and the media, can all be honest about the dishonest data regarding an experiment on honesty and the characters involved, much like the math test and shredder experiment, just on a bigger scale. Now if we see half the defendants and half the claimants signing at the top, it might be a sign.

[@dissect123]

"She claims their accusations are biased, sexist and false" - tell me you are guilty without telling me that you are guilty.

[@lellyparker]

So what are innocent people supposed to say?

[@ashlionell]

@@lellyparker Their accusations are false. Period.

[@TheEternalVortex42]

It's strategic to claim the maximum amount even if there not much basis for it. It improves your chance of success.

[@tomperkins5657]

Nice

[@caleymckibbin2304]

@@lellyparker Not commit the same offense you are suing for. Claims of sexism are essentially impossible to prove because motive is hidden inside the brain. So any accusation of sexism amounts to nothing more than its own defamation.

[@skleon]

"Anyone on the same wifi as you can access your browsing data, etc", please stop spreading false information about VPNs. I understand you need the money from the VPN sponsor and there's a way to advertise its legitimate use cases without spreading false information about computer security.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

What's wrong with changing your known unsecure IP address , to an IP address that is unknown and also insecure? If it makes you sleep better. Sounds like someone's found a good business idea there. Getting paid by an interested third party as well as by his content providing customers.

[@MrAdamo]

@@bjorntorlarssonso medical quacks are ok too I guess? Whatever helps people sleep better?

[@bjorntorlarsson]

If going to sleep is that important to you, why not? You have a difficult time understanding what you read, don't you?@@MrAdamo

[@BR-ty3hx]

Yeah it's not misinformation brother. If you're on the same IP as me I can certainly intercept the packets between your device and the router...

[@RendallRen]

Most internet packets are encrypted these days. Just make sure you're visiting https sites. Most of them are. So, no, the typical snoop cannot view your browsing history.

[@Meditations2024]

Did she not proof read her own paper before she published it? The mistakes are so obvious. Imagine your career being ruined, not simply by Academic dishonesty, but by an utter lack of attention to detail in a field that attention to detail is Paramount? Even if the numbers weren't fabricated, shame on her. She got an *F* on that one and it ruined her career. Better to not publish anything.

[@martinmartinmartin2996]

Obviously you don't realize that academics MUST, MUST publish "research" AT ALL COSTS ...but not bullshit!

[@KinuGrove]

So in the end just another reason to not trust things even if they come from what you think is a credible source.

[@tommeyer6954]

Wakefield's MMR fraud should have sensitized and encouraged researchers to validate data before they signed it. This would seem especially true as an educator. However, the "publish or perish" siren call is difficult to resist - even in Ivy towers.

[@fiveangle]

my NPD ex would often claim, "I was educated by the smartest professors in the world at Harvard and you have no idea what you are talking about!" This concept that she leaned into so often makes a lot more sense now ! LOL

[@luszczi]

It would be interesting to investigate what kind of research is more likely to be fraudulent. I think I noticed a correlation between fraud and high media publicity, but this might be due to availability bias.

[@ttrev007]

my guess it is probably actually related to funding. More money equals more lies

[@unstablepc5913]

There may be a confounding factor. If someone publishes a fraudulent paper with a null result, it's unlikely people will pay it enough heed to detect any fraud.

[@Galahad54]

Motive and opportunity. Medical research has lots of motive, and the overseers are less likely to contest profitable research results. Soft sciences (psychology, sociology) as getting meaningful results is probably harder, and often honest results will result in denial of tenure, failure to get a Ph.D. if they go against senior faculty 's research, current fads, or hurt peoples' feelings. I know one Ph.D. candidate who was given his Ph. D., on condition he NOT publish his (politically unpopular) results. Gist was that Spending on grade 9-12 American schools has almost zero correlation with academic success in college, plus the only way to fail an education major is to not show up class/not turn in a paper. Some very high end suburban schools had worse results than dirt-poor schools, the bad results (and good results) persisted as long as the same management and teachers remained. The easy way to find the top schools was to find out where the Asian parent were moving into. Word of mouth from parents who care enough to do their own research. Challenging research: economics/finance/stocks and bonds. The numbers matter, but usually, psychology matters more, and there's all that unreliable psychology research out there. Large numbers (insurance, consumer credit) can be accurate, within both small-scale and large-scale variance (white swans and light gray swans). Good research: oilfields, because bad research means drilling dry wells. And no, not my field.

[@andrewfoster883]

More funding and progressive bias

[@cp1cupcake]

A lot of it is based on the purpose of the research. There are tons of projects which get a large amount of publicity because they are either politically convienient or someone is looking for a paycheck. Just as an example, the research which started the cold fusion craze was never published in an academic journal or even send to one in order to be peer reviewed. The authors initially got tons and tons of interested investors even though it seems that they forgot some basic things when originally doing their experiment. On the other hand, a lot of journals, espeically in some fields, barely check their submissions. There was a group which wanted to test (I could be misremembering but I think it was to check if it was a worthwhile line of research but it might have been the actual study) the more reputable academic journals in a field by sending bogus studies to said journals. The last one accepted by a journal was a Mein Kampf except updated to modern language and races changed to sexes (German turned into woman, Jew turned into man). The reason the "paper" wasn't published was because a random journalist decided to take a look at who the authors were (fake names and positions were used) regarding a different paper which a journal published.

[@thewolf5459]

Gino claiming ignorance and blaming a co-author is analogous to being angry because you checked "yes" to the terms of agreement without reading them. Every reputable journal ever requires a sign-off from ALL authors when publishing a manuscript. If she didn't check the data, that's on her.

[@andrewhall7176]

What did we learn from this? Sometimes when you protest your innocence, you just make this much, much worse.

[@tedwalford7615]

Really depressing to me are the HUGE petcentages of cheating among study participants: 79% among those asked for an affirmation at form bottom, but still 37% among those asked for an affirmation at form top! (And 64% cheaters in control group with no affirmation to sign.) This is really disgusting. Where have morals gone? Something is very wrong. - And if those liars later are working as lawyers, engineers, inspectors, technicians, doctors, bankers, researchers, etc., there are so many dangers.

[@georgegonzalez2476]

A pox on all their houses. A silly experiment. A silly field of study. Silly conclusion. Not replicated. No peer review. Everybody associated with this should find something useful to do.

[@tomperkins5657]

They have...

[@MarkMcCluney]

I agree George that from our exterior viewpoint that this subject seems awfully trivial but clearly to behavioural scientists and to the HBS it is important. And by important I mean able to generate Big Money. Those conferences shown in this video were clearly not cheapies. This is about business not science anymore.

[@georgegonzalez2476]

Reminds me of Richard Feynman writing about how one guy showed that almost all rat in maze experiments were bogus, as he showed that rats could remember what maze floor sections sounded like. When the maze was laid on sand, rats couldn't navigate anymore. Hundreds if not thousands of experiments invalidated, and there was just sheepish silence from the researchers. Super shoddy behavior. Perhaps behavioral scientists should study scientific behavior. @@MarkMcCluney

[@Desmond-Dark]

@@georgegonzalez2476 Wow that's hilarious if true.

[@nickmullen402]

So the defense theory is : 1) someone else went to extreme lengths to insert incriminating manipulated data into four different paper, probably committing several crimes in the process 2) this person, by the way, is a co-author on a study into which she inserted fake data, therefore she deliberately made herself EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA FRAUD (because all authors are responsible for the integrity of the data and are all guilty of misconduct if there is fraud, regardless of which author actually committed the fraud itself) 3) this incriminating data, which of course strongly supported the central hypothesis of each paper, was not noticed by any of the other authors 4) having carried out this ingenious plot to frame both Gino and herself for fraud, she waited twelve years to spring the trap, allowing Gino to remain at the pinnacle of academia and make a fortune in the meantime Orrrrrrrr... Gino committed the data fraud herself to promote her career. Hmmm this is a real toss-up 😂

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

3.5) None of the peer reviewers read any of the data.

[@anthonybernstein1626]

... and all of this in a ~100 record dataset, not terabytes of data.

[@OzixiThrill]

@@andyk2181 I mean, you're talking about unpaid post-grads who would rather be doing their own research, but because they can't really get into publications without participating in peer review, they have to do it. So they have a conflict of interests as far as doing peer review properly is concerned.

[@SeeAndDreamify]

@@OzixiThrill that sounds like a problem.

[@OzixiThrill]

@@SeeAndDreamify It doesn't just sound like one. And it's not even half of it.

[@dfcx1]

The absolute balooney that was in that VPN ad segment feels really out of place considering the topic of the video. Not using a VPN does not mean your computer has a keylogger installed!

[@Nadia1989]

For real. If you have a keylogger installed already, there's no VPN that can save you.

[@ashleyroughton6814]

TY for the update. Keep posting.

[@robertpearson8546]

I was trying to duplicate a paper I read. It made no sense. So I got the papers in the bibliography. The seminal paper was "unavailable". So I called the university and asked for a copy. They had none. So I called the author and asked for a copy. He claimed he had none. "Publish or perish", or "Claim to publish"? Sounds like fraud to me.

[@marfolgore]

They sign articles, then you ask about their data and they don't know what to reply. A house of cards.

[@ArtU4All]

My friend in biology, a very strong scientist in cancer research with a patent in hematology testing could not replicate six times the results, recently published in the toney science journal… when an email inquiry was made to the author directly, the reply was “you have your data, we have have ours”.

[@sivarohitk8154]

It's little SQL or Excel work, they can remove these anomalies but these Harvard professors don't have good experience with cheating or with Excel

[@JohnSmith-qy1wm]

They'd have just manufactured the records either way. Or maybe not, given how laughably stupid the data manipulation is.

[@someguy999]

Excel isn't a database and autocorrect can lead to errors. In genetics, a ton of incorrect gene names have been published because of Excel's autocorrect. Not trying to argue against your main point, but it's worth pointing out that Excel can cause it's own problems.

[@alicedoors4826]

you think these people just started lying and cheating? doubt it

[@paavobergmann4920]

@@someguy999 All over, Excel may be the program that caused the most economic damage in human history. It has features that border on insanity, e.g., dragging a point in the diagram around, and the data change accordingly in the table.... And every time you type "DNA", the german version writes "DANN" (--> "Then", a logical operator. Thank you, Microsoft. Thank you.)

[@omnivector45]

this cannot be repaired. it must be dismantled and rebuilt, with the guilty paying for their crimes.

[@pc5147]

@zoomer9686 'Весь мир насилья мы разрушим. До основанья , а затем... ', we know how that ends.

[@kingfisher9553]

absolutely agree with omnivector 45

[@stephenkolostyak4087]

Stopped at 1:39 when the professor was put on administrative leave; my understtanding it the President of Harvard is now being paiding nearly $1m USD/yr to be a professor due to her publilshing fraudulent papers. Is that what they mean by adminstrative leave?

[@brrrrr256]

What I learned is don't just trust that a paper put into a shredder, is really being shredded... These social psychology types are wily and sneaky.

[@khalidcabrero6204]

I have to admit I am a little surprised that Harvard's internal report came to that conclusion. I would have expected them to protect their own and slam the BU prof. Or at least muddy the waters with sufficient ambiguity to bury the matter. Kudos to them. A bright light in a sordid case.

[@torbreww]

At least Harvard wasn’t afraid of being politically incorrect and did not make excuses for her because she’s a woman like they they are still making for their antisemitic black lesbian Harvard President who has plagiarized her way through her career.

[@caleymckibbin2304]

They surely would have done that if they controlled whether the bloggers could publish it.

[@nonyobisniss7928]

I'd be suspicious of the paper just because it claims 79% of people cheated if not prompted with the honesty question before starting. Assuming they weren't aware that others were cheating, that seems crazy high for adults.

[@madichelp0]

Is it really that strange? From just googling "percent college students cheat" it seems to be above 50%, some even saying it's over 70%. If that's true then I don't find it that weird that 79% people would cheat if there's money involved and the evidence is shredded.

[@meneldal]

To be fair, this is a scenario where you believe they have no way of telling and they're giving out money. There is a strong incentive for cheating and zero perceived risk.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

NOT cheating is extremely rare. In the Navy I beat the "red/black" game by not cheating; but more importantly, convincing my team to not cheat. It apparently was some sort of a first at that leadership school. The idea is everyone cheats; there's something wrong (probably autistic) a person that does not cheat. IMO, religious people are less likely to cheat. I don't mean outwardly religious, but inwardly; knowing that someone (God) ALWAYS is watching and will know you cheated and prefers you not to cheat.

[@nonyobisniss7928]

@@thomasmaughan4798 Interesting perspective. Maybe it's related to IQ. People with lower IQs have way more to gain from cheating, because if they play fair they will lose. People with higher IQs can achieve very much with honest work, so have less to gain and more to lose from cheating. In the end, though, when a competitive environment is full of cheaters who get away with it the temptation to cheat becomes much higher. The psychological study does seem like something I could justify cheating at. My argument would be 'They designed the study to test something and they chose to make it so we could cheat, therefore it is acceptable to cheat.' I feel like there'd still be something holding me back from cheating though, just some doubt about it.

[@kensurrency2564]

Because it’s bullshit

[@WeebFitness]

I know that your sponsor segment was just an ad read, but the info you gave about VPNs is incredibly misleading. Ironic considering the topic of the video is about failures of academic integrity and misconduct in honesty studies.

[@RockinBoz]

He’s just getting his bag, integrity doesn’t matter.

[@RichardChonak]

Thanks for this comment. VPNs provide some real but mostly redundant security. Of course I don't blame non-specialiists for being fooled by the sales spin.

[@richardarriaga6271]

​@@RichardChonakDownloading Trojans is how a hacker would get your password, which can happen with a VPN.

[@rosomak8244]

@@RichardChonak For a starters: They lie about what they offer. It is not a "virtual private network". What they sell is access to a HTTP proxy service.

[@RichardChonak]

@@rosomak8244 Thanks. The router setup guides on their web site seem to imply that the service is a real VPN, so I'd like to find out more about that.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

This is a frivolous lawsuit. She should be forced to pay everyone’s attorney’s fees, fired, and deported.

[@ColdHawk]

Thanks for the reporting Pete!

[@psychotropicalresearch5653]

When I was a medical student, there was a piece of graffiti over the toilet paper dispenser, which said “psychology degrees, please, help yourself“. Seems that was correct and prescient.

[@williamwasilewski7925]

😎👍🙏🏼

[@kmbbmj5857]

Every university must have that saying in a stall.

[@peglor]

Sometimes it's European Studies instead, though more hilariously the course in Public Administration was shown by at least one year's graduate survey data for the university I went to, to create the only graduate class with a lower average income following 4 years of study, than the average income of those who just finish high school and go straight to work (Or unemployment). At least there is no crippling student debt associated with getting through college here, so people can study things that might enrich their lives rather than considering earning potential first.

[@2muchscorp]

I have to admit I'm enjoying this is happening at Harvard,; and then has to go institutionally deeper whether Harvard successfully covers it up or not

[@conroc01]

Harvard is more a political institution and less a scholarly institution.

[@alexmikhylov]

she really went for the Shaggy defence

[@peglor]

She did it for a Scooby Snack? 😛

[@alexmikhylov]

@@peglor different Shaggy

[@thebusdriverdanshow8112]

Thanks for this breakdown. People drowning will grab anything to stay afloat. People who see their lifelong career going down the drain will grasp at any scapegoat to stop them from suffering the consequences. I feel sorry that an otherwise intelligent and devoted educator has fallen so far. I hope she can right her ship. The world is better if someone like this does it right.

[@Tinil0]

Honestly, if I was ever accused of something like this I would HOPE there would be a 1300 page report. That shows how seriously they take it and how they were utterly meticulous in trying to determine the truth.

[@sarjannarwan6896]

Can you explain what you mean by someone intercepting key strokes on your network? Unless you have malware on your system I can't see any mechanism for that. I wish people were more responsible with VPN sponsors and didn't make these kinds of claims.

[@AbiSaysThings]

His entire field is based on lies so it's not surprising that he's not a fan of rigor himself. Seriously, in the middle of describing academic fraud he cites a channel that itself was a scam. Not a hint of irony when explaining that he's a long-time fan boy of these charlatans. It's interesting stuff but I wouldn't trust him or any other "behavioural scientist" as far as I could throw them.

[@MechMK1]

VPNs don't increase your security by any meaningful amount. The overwhelming majority of websites use HTTPS, which is encrypted. You prevent ISPs spying on you, and exchange it for VPN providers now spying on you. The only real, tangible benefit a VPN provides is that you can fake your location to circumvent region locking.

[@lucaslouzada44]

Someone that sues the accuser on the grounds of misogynistic behaviour, only to implicate a female fellow in an Agatha Christie plot, cannot be taken seriously…

[@doctorlolchicken7478]

Not a behavioral psychologist but I do use Qualtics a lot. Admittedly the version back in 2012 may have been more primitive, but the version I use logs everything very obviously and it’s easy to store a copy of the data locally. What that means is Nina would have to be very stupid to believe she could tamper with Gino’s data and get away with it. She would need access to Gino’s hard drive and any servers she used. Even then, she couldn’t possibly know that there was no other copy of the data, say on a thumb drive or some other folder. Qualtrics records when each record was added and who added it, so there would be obvious time differences between the original data and the tampered data. So I’m not buying Francesca Gino’s explanation. It sounds like when some celebrity says something racist on Twitter and then claims their phone was hacked.

[@woodenbat4054]

This video taught me how to create a fraudulant work in a way that wouldn’t raise these red flags. And then if caught, how not to put blame. Time to produce original research papers.

[@DanElton]

Crazy that Harvard still has her on the faculty roll and hasn’t revoked tenure

[@kevikiru]

It's not true that being on the same WiFi can allow someone to access your browsing data, keystrokes, passwords or photos! Your device would have to been hacked. The admin, however, can see what devices are using the WiFi and the sites they are requesting. But the passwords and data transmitted are protected by hashing and encryption even without a VPN. Stop scaring people for sponsorship!!

[@youtubs7890]

That description of a VPN doesn't make sense not anyone using the same wifi can read your keystrokes that is rediculous. Weird way to scare people into buying a product.

[@dereknewbury163]

As a retired psychologist, I am so disappointed that there is any suspicion attached to our profession. It takes so little to loose public trust

[@thomasmaughan4798]

If you asked me to name ten trusted psychologists; I would start with Jordan Peterson then umm.... maybe Carl Jung.

[@mkkrupp2462]

Peterson distorted a chart dealing with climate change.

[@dereknewbury163]

@@mkkrupp2462 He did indeed and adding that to his propensity for producing word salad makes persona non grata surely

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@mkkrupp2462 "Peterson distorted a chart dealing with climate change." Lacking detail. Many or most charts are already *distorted* as for instance from "homogenization" or splicing thermometer data onto proxy data as if it is a single trend line.

[@shannonbarber6161]

How could you possibly be unaware of how therapist across that nation have been exploiting children's anxiety to suggest and implant gender dysphoria. Never mind a century of rampant fraud in the field.

[@jbirsner]

New Yorker covered much of this in an article titled, "They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie."

[@ffelegal]

This is my favorite science telenovela ever. Just get your popcorn and enjoy! 🍿

[@mkkrupp2462]

Wait for the real movie or mini series!

[@glorifiedlungfish]

Love your work! A couple of things I noticed from the document - 1. there was a crazy thing that few people seem to have noticed - it's not just a matter of faking the data, it's also the fact that the study itself MADE NO SENSE - allegedly (supported by witness and documentary evidence) the "manipulation" of the "sign at the top or bottom" form happened AFTER participants did the cheating task and were paid for it. Basically causality would have to be backwards in time lol. It was in the original "anonymous" complaint (that we now know was the Data Colada people) but it wasn't in the blog posts - as far as I know we saw it for the first time in the giant report. Pretty shocking, even for Behavioral Science! 2. there was no fake shredder in the relevant Clusterfake paper, that was a different study, subjects just put the worksheets into a "recycle bin" that researchers then collected.

[@robertlove8593]

That does not really matter, because studies prove test takers don't read or follow the instructions even when told to do so. The experiment is still used today. It is simple: a professor give a class 30 minutes to complete a 20 question test,and tells the class several times that you have to read the instructions which instructs you to read every qustion before you start. Question 20 is often count to ten out loud. However, the last line of the instructions are not to do the test. That test has been out for decades, and 90 percent still fail it. This test is invalid because there is no assurance that people ever read the pledge.

[@johnrusche8256]

My experience is after 30 years as a research scientist in private industry, half of all data is either fraudulent or irrelevant -- at least if it is comes from somebody else Basically, I only trust my own data. I only trust my own work. I do not trust people! It pays off! I have been retired since I was 50, basically because I could not take it anymore.

[@ArtU4All]

🌿🙏✨

[@pc5147]

Yes, fraud and mistakes happen more often than we would want - science is done by people after all - but you cannot deny the overall progress.

[@pisceananarchyvortex7223]

I can deny it.@@pc5147

[@levelup2014]

It’s so crazy how now anybody has to the potential to become their own “media channel” and be able to bring tens of thousands of eyes to a topic, something that wasn’t really even a thought 10 years ago, Im a tech guy and got this video recommended and watched the whole thing great job

[@jessgoren1]

What a great channel you have. I didn’t know anything about this case and you spoke clearly about it. I’m hooked!

[@MsCherryKiss]

lol that study... who sells out their honor for a few single dollars??? just silly. No GOOD reason to lie on the self reporting

[@proterotype]

I’ve gotta say, that second box with the name ‘Nina’ uses a different size font than the first occurrence just above it

[@ShankarSivarajan]

Could be "she"?

[@tedphillips2501]

You need to identify who would have benefited the most from creating such a data scandal . Harvard would probably save more useful money recreating the study than wasting useful money on litigation.

[@denisdaly1708]

I was suspicious of this when it was published, Gino has zero psych training. To an actual psychologist, ethical behaviour depends on many variables, ethical identity, personality, framing and so on. No data was collected on these variables. I fail a student who did this.

[@churblefurbles]

No psych training is necessary, they are incentivized to find positive effects so they can go on the npr circuit and sell books.

[@Fordance100]

It's unlikely the assistant make the mistake to just favor the hypothesis? Who collected the original data, and when the data was changed at which computer first?