The Fall of a Superstar Psychologist

[@_quant]

Since publishing the video, 2 errors have been brought to my attention: First: The Israeli Ministry of Finance paid Ariely 17 million ILS (not USD). This amounts to 4.65 million USD. Second: While reading the emails at 10:25 and 10:51 I accidentally read Aimee's response before reading Dan's original question. Thanks to those who pointed out the mistakes. I will be more thorough in checking for errors next time.

[@srinivasreddy3485]

Honestly dishonest😂

[@augustortiz]

It doesn't change much to the core message.

[@planaritytheory]

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

[@Ferdinand314]

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

[@mahansolo108]

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

[@ConWolfDoubleO7]

This is why we seriously need to accept non-significant findings. Not finding a correlation is still useful information, but no one wants to put money into something to say you didn't find anything. And the "publish or perish" is completely true. Professors are expected to not only teach classes, but to publish a paper at least once a year in order to keep their job. Teaching and research should both be full-time commitments, otherwise both end up half-assed.

[@Themrsnappyify]

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

[@billking8843]

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

[@skyandthemoon]

Honestly I agree

[@einfisch3891]

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

[@nanathegoat5106]

This is the real problem

[@dantaehiruma5918]

This Ariely dude appeared in HBO's documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and provides some bizare moral justification for Holmes' scam. Now I realize why. He was giving justification for his own scam.

[@MayorSom]

looooooooooool. Real recognise Real.

[@AmenProletar]

The scammer community

[@JediBunny]

Projection for his own protection lol!

[@firecatskylar]

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

[@SomeGuyNamedTex]

Good catch.

[@fattsteve]

The music being on an eight second loop is the perfect length to induce psychotic rage. My experiments prove it

[@HAMSANDWICH246]

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

[@bennyk384]

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

[@Misslayer99]

Mine too

[@TykoBrian7]

Huh?

[@joearnold6881]

I was fine until you mentioned it 😖

[@TheVeraciety]

Academic honesty needs to be extremely promoted. I’m tired of loud fabricators getting the advantage over quiet diligent truth-tellers.

[@marcodallolio9746]

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

[@crabby7668]

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

[@xiaojinyusaudiobookswebnov4951]

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

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

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

[@AexisRai]

_Enforcement_ of the academic honesty needs to be promoted.

[@santherstat]

as someone doing academic research, not getting IRB approval is insane. Not getting IRB approval for an experiment that SHOCKS PEOPLE is even crazier

[@erinmarieee23]

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

[@ezracramer1370]

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

[@jennyanydots2389]

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

[@MelissaBlue]

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

[@richmcgee434]

One assumes he studied under Peter Venkman at some point.

[@chrispysaid]

My god, that background song you chose is making me want to destroy every trumpet in existence

[@cloudthief8918]

Might as well have played cbat for 20 minutes

[@gblargg]

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

[@gblargg]

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

[@susieusmaximus5330]

My big question is whether journalists are ever going to learn that one study, by itself, no matter how interesting its findings are, means very little unless and until its findings are replicated.

[@ryanvannice7878]

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

[@BIBLE-UNBUTCHERED]

The wonders science

[@ryanergo754]

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

[@susieusmaximus5330]

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

[@zaczacal4164]

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

[@MedlifeCrisis]

Nice work. Fraud is so common in modern academia for a number of reasons - I’ve covered it in medicine, but it’s everywhere…however my outsider’s perspective is that psychology is especially susceptible

[@davieb8216]

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

[@falutzel7942]

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

[@ardeladimwit]

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

[@lymphomasurvive]

All social science.

[@listrahtes]

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

[@justanotherhappyhumanist8832]

9:00 in - A person signing every email of their’s with “irrationally yours” is the most annoying thing that I have seen in a long, long time. And can you imagine how much more annoying it would be if that person had also been harassing you for a year, trying to gaslight you, trying to drag you into their scummy scam of a mess, and get you to lie for them about their fraudulent study! Poor Aimee. She must have wanted to throw her device against the wall after seeing a year’s worth of those “irrationally yours” signatures. No wonder she blocked him.

[@yongmrchen]

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

[@justanotherhappyhumanist8832]

@@yongmrchen Haha, exactly!

[@fredhasopinions]

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

[@Joris-KarlHuysmans]

Yeah this is so f&&ed up on so many levels. Textbook narcissist.

[@johnsanko4136]

The irony of Ariely and the Harvard psych professor both having fraudulently manipulated data in reseadch on honesty would be hilarious if it wasn't so infuriating.

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro.

[@Yt-qi9ot]

Basically studies regarding fraud should be approached with caution.

[@davidhollenshead4892]

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

[@assa-x6h]

AND it the EXACT SAME research

[@secondjoint]

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

[@britnicox3929]

The email chain with Amy is really so funny (and kind of insidious if you look too hard) because he is trying so hard to get her into maybe conceding something happened and she’s like NO GO AWAY

[@beiwang]

Talk about gaslighting

[@jennyanydots2389]

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

[@BaritoneMonkey]

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

[@BaritoneMonkey]

​@@jennyanydots2389Are you good?

[@AG-iu9lv]

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

[@swarple]

Love how Aimee wasn’t buying any of his crap. You can tell he’s trying to gaslight her (“ohhh I’m sure this thing happened it definitely did you just might have forgotten right?”) but she isn’t having it. It was satisfying, seeing her politely but firmly deny him what he wants. You can tell she’s pissed lol

[@shibasurfing]

One of the PIs of the (physics) lab I did research in as an undergrad had her career impacted by the Schön scandal. She spent several years of her PhD trying in vain to replicate his false results. Academic dishonesty is absolutely vile.

[@icp7201]

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

[@shibasurfing]

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

[@markgoogolplex2572]

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

[@issecret1]

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

[@DevynCairns]

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

[@andrewjpalla]

I fucking love the drama of seeing emails exchanged between two academic professionals.

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro?

[@emeral311]

Yes I live for this!

[@JPR3D]

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

[@vanesslifeygo]

The bus.

[@mbzdotdev]

also who tf ends an email with "irrationally yours". like buddy are you ok

[@lucasbaird3538]

I had a professor have us read his book a few years ago, and she pointed out to us that his work was likely not completely true. Which totally shocked me at the time, especially from a book my professor recommended to us, but I thought it was an interesting lesson in itself.

[@mtnhowie]

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

[@pilotjoe4010]

I can’t overstate how big of an issue academic honesty is. Companies, governments, and ngo’s rely on replicating results. More and more studies are shown to be fraudulent, resulting in poor products for citizens. Also: TED is pay to present, same goes for anything FORBES. Source: my last job bought several of each.

[@Ramboost007]

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

[@LucasCarter2]

Isn’t Ted curated and TEDX the garbage one?

[@marcanton5357]

Jew.

[@JohnsDough1918]

​@@marcanton5357 Oh, so edgy. Boring.

[@marcanton5357]

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

[@fromchomleystreet]

The irony is turned up to eleven. His whole area of expertise is “honesty”. In describing the way the profit motive incentivises dentists to “find” cavities that aren’t there, he’s actually describing perfectly how he was incentivised to “find” that alleged fact about dentists.

[@YoYo-gt5iq]

Such an excellent observation

[@jennyanydots2389]

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

[@michaelwills1926]

Duper’s Delight

[@imsleepy6211]

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

[@milton7763]

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

[@Headhunter_212]

That horn theme playing on an endless loop… dude you’re killing me.

[@sinyud]

I worked in academic research for over a decade. I lost count how many times I saw sloppy data analysis discover signals that didn’t actually exist. If you give one dataset to a thousand grad students, one of them will manage to interpret the noise as a signal. That student will get the publication and advance their career. I work in industry now.

[@Harriet1822]

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

[@jayteegamble]

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

[@jrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjrjr]

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

[@CrzyLion]

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

[@t3ss33]

Unfortunately, statistics is taught to so many students at a rudimentary level. Additionally, testing data for irregularity or implausibility is rarely part of the education. Of course, the case here is different as data was not just misinterpreted but fabricated.

[@beatrizl1848]

It's crazy that people calling him out on his mistakes is a 'good lesson.' I'm a behavioral researcher, and accuracy and conscientiousness to a fault, to the level of arguing about extremely minor statistical issues and quantifying exactly our margins of errors ( called confidence intervals), is drilled into us from day one. Researchers do not 'forget' things like whether something was IRB approved or where the data came from, we obsessively hold onto our data securely and can bore others to tears about how we painstakingly collected it. This guy is a liar who knew exactly what he was doing.

[@nandi123]

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

[@TheJhtlag]

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

[@candyh4284]

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

[@pjj.5649]

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

[@Limpass610]

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

[@Frenchylikeshikes]

The emails from the UCLA Professor were absolutely brutal. I think she says it all.

[@Mantuamaker]

I’m surprised at how mad I am just 9 minutes in. I ran two studies in my undergrad. I worked so hard I ended up in the hospital for ten days at the end and this guy not only apparently faked studies he gained fame and fortune off of it. It brings the whole field of psych research down.

[@eugenetswong]

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

[@marcanton5357]

Jew.

[@H3c171]

Welcome to hell 😂

[@paullopez2021]

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

[@daniellamcgee4251]

​@@marcanton5357 Or. what??

[@stm7405]

man that trumpet riff gets annoying

[@DKH712]

In the Netherlands we had a researcher called Diederik Stapel who also fabricated data in the same field of study (EDIT: social psychology) back in 2011. It was such a drama that his surname became synonymous with fraud (doing a Stapel) in some cricles. It seems social psychology, with it's counterintuitive findings and large interest in the findings from media, is very fertile ground for fraud.

[@faithlesshound5621]

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

[@MichaelCampbell01]

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

[@faithlesshound5621]

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

[@DKH712]

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

[@astronemir]

It’s almost a fraud discipline. Sad

[@amarug]

I think the issue starts with how academia in now all fields has degenerated into a d*ck measurement competition, on whose publication list is the longest. That essentially ruined the whole idea of "let's keep working hard until we have something of value". I did a PhD thesis in a engineering/health-science and had a good hypothesis on how certain medical conditions could be predicted from mechanical data. I spend months and months building up simulation pipelines and everything, but at the end, when I finally got the data, it was clear pretty quickly that no signal was to be found. I cut my losses and published it in a nothing-burger journal as an "interesting method on how to calculate forces in the body" and left it there. I could have easily "seen patterns in chaos" when looking at my data and with some pushing, sold it as something much more fancy, but that is not the point of science. Also personally, I'd much rather be an honest nobody than a successful fraud.

[@dedstar2132]

If true, Bless u for your academic honesty

[@GiegueX]

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

[@haroldcruz8550]

It's really all about money

[@erebus79]

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

[@matthewbeale5098]

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

[@stephanieparker1250]

Signing professional emails with “irrationally yours” is really stupid.. even if it’s your “Schtick”.

[@Debthouse]

13:05 "You get paid more if you find more cavities..." (from his dentists' study) pretty well summarizes his entire modus operandi when it comes to his approach to psychological studies. He presents a hypothesis that fits a narrative he wants to present and then his papers "find the cavities" to support the hypothesis/narrative, which is how he increases his revenue, personal wealth, and social capital.

[@dylanmartin9190]

Great comment

[@paullopez2021]

Telling on himself like he’s Johnny Silvestri.

[@Debthouse]

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

[@danopticon]

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

[@XXMatt0040XX]

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

[@profdc9501]

I have been told by a research ethics university administrator that he is not a policeman and doesn't want to hear about wrongdoing. The last thing any ambitious administrator, even one who has a job chairing a research ethics board, seeking to climb the greasy pole wants to deal with is the fallout from a research ethics scandal.

[@TehPwnerer]

What a coward

[@quantumfineartsandfossils2152]

such a brilliant biting comment bravo

[@GoldHamSam]

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

[@tzenophile]

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

[@profdc9501]

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

[@jamieholmes6087]

Sorry, but I can't listen to the same 3 second music loop for 21 minutes.

[@LPMutagen]

Hahaha, thank you. I immediately went elsewhere.

[@seriouslythodonteven]

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

[@ys_scl]

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

[@jamieholmes6087]

@@seriouslythodonteven Are you joking?

[@matthewsmith1779]

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

[@Ramboost007]

Personally, the Ariely frauds are still heartbreaking. I went on a behavioral economics phase when I was in high school. I read Freakonomics, Thinking Fast and Slow, and Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality during class, and I seriously considered being a behavioral economist partly because of Ariely (I didn't, I became a chemist). Now seeing a part of that world being fraudulent kind of hurts.

[@Seth9809]

Wait, he was Freakanomics?

[@Spectrescup]

​@@Seth9809no

[@ronanmaebee]

​@Seth9809 no freakonomics was steven levitt and Stephen dubner

[@BaritoneMonkey]

​@saehisayawait, has Freakonomics been debunked or something?

[@Hexanitrobenzene]

@@zweisiedler. I remember someone saying "I don't trust anyone who publishes more than 4 papers a year", but 100 ?

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

This guy wasn’t even a smart fraud. The odometer data is hilarious.

[@TehPwnerer]

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

[@muhammadputera6593]

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

[@tzenophile]

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

[@andrewhooper7603]

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

[@Benjamin-xv9le]

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

[@Katalowins]

Very well produced video. It’s a privilege to be here for your first project. I have zero background in the peer reviewed studies world, and I found this work to be captivating and easy to follow.

[@ClassicJukeboxBand]

If you think fraud is rampant in regular studies, take a close look at nutrition research...

[@a_l_e_k_sandra]

This!

[@hiker-uy1bi]

What fraud is there specifically in nutrition research?

[@ClassicJukeboxBand]

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

[@rangoman1815]

Especially in the medical fields

[@tzenophile]

@@hiker-uy1bi Ever heard of Big Cheese?

[@stenlis]

I remember reading an Ariely study that somebody cited on reddit and being shocked at how bad it was: - it used "lie detectors" (term used in the study) to determine results as if they could detect lies accurately - control group didn't control for anything - data was not published and data analysis almost non existent I thought maybe he was under pressure to publish quickly but was still astounded he put his name on that thing. I didn't know he was this bad

[@BlueCyann]

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

[@XXMatt0040XX]

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

[@charlesferdinand422]

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

[@justine4581]

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

[@jean9l187]

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

[@moviehoofd]

As a fellow Economics student i remember this man being discussed in my behavioural economics course. So interesting yet discouraging to see that such a well respected and influential researcher made up so much data. Very well made video, I will be eagerly awaiting your next video!

[@Triple_J.1]

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

[@ryan44662]

It's not just publish or perish that is the issue. It's the emphasis on positive results in research. Saying something doesn't work or there is no correlation does not get academic attention. It actually wastes time to not publish negative results as other groups may spin their wheels on the same idea.

[@akirebyrne]

Thanks for covering this. I’m not an academic, but a citizen that looks to experts that help government create public policy. There’s an anti-intellectualism movement in America, and academia not doing it due diligence is further sabotaging themselves. I don’t know how I’m supposed to advocate for better laws when I can’t even justify “factual” information anymore.

[@jodycwilliams]

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

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

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

[@moenibus]

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

[@blackhammer5035]

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

[@automatic5]

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

[@rampagingFurniture]

This incident's stuck with me ever since one of my labmates shared the Data Colada posts with me. It's such a vivid example of how celebrity and "entrepreneurship" can lead to some serious conflict of interest in research. Good work laying it out in a narrative fashion!

[@johnnyswatts]

Fraud is a REPEATED problem in psychology. There was another scholar in the early 2010s who had to retract most of his published work, as I recall. Other studies in this field have posited that most studies draw incorrect conclusions. It's a difficult field, for sure,but not made easier by charlatans.

[@elvingearmasterirma7241]

The field was cursed from the get go I swear

[@anathema2325]

Modern day astrology

[@elvingearmasterirma7241]

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

[@abacab87]

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

[@kchuen]

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

[@biturboism]

The majority in academia know the sinking feeling when you realise your research from the last X months is going nowhere. It requires a lot of courage to face that, especially if your job, career, and status depend on it being otherwise.

[@johnracine4589]

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

[@candyh4284]

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

[@maxsonthonax1020]

Why the music loop?

[@zadrik1337]

The phrase "publish or perish" is very real. There is huge pressure for all professors at all universities to get grants and publish papers. As universities take a large amount off the top off each grant, that process is a major part of university funding. I feel anecdotally that a large number of papers end up with fake data in order to keep the money flowing. This is just one that was made famous.

[@JohnPellman]

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

[@JohnPellman]

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

[@falljosh]

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

[@venicec3310]

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

[@l.w.paradis2108]

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

[@partyinthecloudkingdom]

if i had a nickel for every superstar psychologist researching honesty that was exposed this year for manipulating data i'd have 2 nickles. which isnt a lot but its weird that it happened twice

[@41tl]

Who was the other one?

[@l30n.marin3r0]

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

[@003998]

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

[@Rae_777]

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

[@rikardo831]

This background "music" was terrible. It's a 20 minute video man...

[@JeremiCzarnecki]

As penance for all his misdeeds, Ariely should be made to listen to the infuriatingly repetitive and irritating background music of this video. The fact I made it through despite it is a testament of how important the topic is and, to an extent, how good your reporting on it is.

[@michaelegan3522]

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

[@andrewgerrand154]

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

[@bigboi1004]

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

[@dylanmartin9190]

I noticed too

[@ContactsNfilters]

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

[@MagiciteHeart]

This is blowing my mind. I've never seen your channel before and idk why this video was recommended to me, but I studied under Dan Ariely at Duke and he was one of my heroes. I'm crushed. 😢

[@troycambo]

Don't trust any member of the tribe bud

[@MagiciteHeart]

@@troycambo The fuck is that supposed to mean?

[@ElementalAer]

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

[@BrainGodGenius]

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

[@MisterWebb]

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

[@T..C..M]

This background music will be in my head for days.

[@sjoerdglaser2794]

I worked as a research method teacher (including statistics) for 10 years at two psychology department. The talk at 17:25 about removing a data point they did not like was really telling. 'Look at us! We are removing data we don't like. Look how smart we are to realize that and protect ourselves from that. We are doing such a good job!'. While this should be second year bachelor knowledge AT MOST. Crushing how such elemental practice is touted as almost a discovery by a leading scientist. Imagine a therapist bragging that they know the names of the 10 most common diagnosed disordres in the DSM.

[@SnarkTheMagicDragon]

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

[@Rxyn_attack]

thats such a good way to summarize it lmao

[@77bones]

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

[@synlion]

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

[@ethankoeus9581]

@@77bones The problem isn't removing invalid data (in this case a drunk subject). The problem is the process by which he arrived at the idea of removing that subject, and the potential bias it introduced into the results. If you start with the rule "exclude inebriated subjects" and applied it to the whole sample, that would be fine. Ariely himself acknowledges that they only realised that the subject was inebriated because he was a massive outlier that appeared to contradict their hypothesis. Hence, if there were inebriated (or otherwise incapacitated) subjects in the other group, this decision process ("investigate the outliers which contradict your hypothesis, exclude them if you find a good reason to") would not have caught them; thus it would introduce bias into the results and falsely reinforce the hypothesis he was supposed to be investigating.

[@geometerfpv2804]

The sad truth is that if we want to do a truly good job and create great research, we are at a massive career disadvantage because it takes much less time to cheat, and people rarely analyze the work closely enough to see that the good work is the real deal. They just count number of papers and citations when looking to hire...and so that's what academics optimize for. It's really messing with our science...there is so much useless or incorrect work out there...but it still counts towards publication count, so mission accomplished, I guess 🙄

[@ellielikesmath]

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

[@eugenetswong]

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

[@afterthesmash]

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

[@GiegueX]

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

[@xelefonte]

What’s with the little house on the prairie background music?

[@lindybeige]

Those repeating eleven notes on the trumpet were extremely irritating. I have no idea why you edited on that noise.

[@VictoriaAlfredSmythe]

so agree. had to stop watching. driving me MAD

[@aneececolt]

damnit, now I can't stop hearing it.

[@aaronyarlas3553]

I'm so glad this video showed up on my front page! I'm a late career psychologist (was in academia, now industry) who has followed the "replication crisis" and QRPs for years, cheering on Retraction Watch and the "data thugs" and Andrew Gelman and the open science folks etc. from the start. This might be the first video on this account, but this is clearly not your first video, as this is professional-grade work. So absolutely impressive in terms of both the content and presentation, you just crushed it. Can't wait for more.

[@anishaakther4116]

I liked this video and went to see your other work, but was astounded to see this is your first. Incredible quality analysis and editing! Looking forward to what comes next.

[@xsir_hcx3897]

The worst part abt that email chain is that he’s a psychologist and can’t tell that she’s tired of his bullshit, that everyone understand what he’s up to lol

[@gskills55]

The claim about dentists and cavities was crazy to just announce on NPR along with the name of a gigantic insurance company. What the hell did he think was gonna happen?

[@mrw1208]

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

[@Shreendg]

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

[@mashajohns7810]

I’m studying psychology and watching this is just insane. How did he even get away with all the dishonesty ???

[@charlesferdinand422]

He's Hebrew so he got a pass and even made a few million bucks.

[@jennyanydots2389]

Celebrity. People wanted to believe he was legit. If you're even semi famous everyone around you turns into a total pucking moron I guess.

[@SnarkTheMagicDragon]

@@charlesferdinand422 go back to your klan meeting.

[@candyh4284]

@@charlesferdinand422 weeeeeeEEEEEEOOoooooooOOOOOWWWWwweeeeeeeEEEEOOOoooooo sorry that's my nazi alarm

[@haroldcruz8550]

It depends on what tribe you belong to.

[@bloomnights]

The first paper being also the one gino is in is just so awful. There were two researchers independently faking data in the same paper, and academy didn't realize and/or care

[@eljanrimsa5843]

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

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro.

[@007kingifrit]

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

[@dnebdal]

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

[@marcanton5357]

Jew.

[@CG_Hali]

Super interesting and well done. Feedback: the extremely repetitive background music was very distracting. Maybe lower it to barely anything or remove all together (I know non-repetitive music is expensive). But I think your content can stand on its own without the music. :D

[@helloworldies]

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

[@abc_13579]

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

[@cosmicmuffin322]

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

[@davidwatkins894]

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

[@IC-vm2zw]

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

[@kcindc5539]

Hasn’t the Geneva Convention outlawed that godawful 8 second background music loop as even more objectionable than waterboarding? If they haven’t, they should

[@katie8099]

The emails to Aimee Drolet are just pure desperation

[@andrewhooper7603]

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

[@ibbledibble]

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

[@PsRohrbaugh]

Data fabrication needs to criminal, including JAIL TIME. The mistrust it causes does untold damage on society.

[@marcanton5357]

Jew.

[@Lizard1582]

​@@marcanton5357tard

[@dickurkel6910]

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

[@haroldbalzac6336]

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

[@paullopez2021]

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

[@Frits_Mulder]

Interesting subject, but the background music just makes you wanna turn it off, it's just the same few notes repeated over and over for 20 minutes!

[@aarondavis8943]

I actually had a dentist try to fill 3 cavities I didn't have. I just never went back to get the work and years later another dentist gave me an all clear. So this kind of practice definitely occurs. That is probably why Ariely thought he could get away with lying about the data 😂

[@thesilverpen]

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

[@jennyanydots2389]

The mark of truly a great MAGA supporter

[@Myrzghe]

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

[@jennyanydots2389]

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

[@Myrzghe]

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

[@batturiebunnie6460]

the same three music notes in the background throughout the video drove me wild 😭

[@peonieprincess]

Me too 😭

[@axohxa]

I know it was so distracting and annoying 🙃

[@AndrewBarsky]

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

[@ishitvvats2044]

i didnt even notice till i read this

[@ishitvvats2044]

someone should do a study on why no one noticed

[@smalldummy804]

Hey the video itself is great! But could you change the music from time to time? ^^

[@MrPokemak]

In light of Ariely, Gino, and Tessier-Lavigne, all that I can conclude for these top-tier institutions is that your name is merely enough after a certain point. It sucks that Gino is the only one that is going to face any form of backlash, but it is a step in the right direction. If you look at their papers, you can see the arrogance exuded through their manipulation of data being laughably terrible, even less effot than the data I used to fake for lab reports back in highschool.

[@trashmonster2293]

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

[@idontwantahandlethough]

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

[@nondescriptnyc]

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

[@steveperreira5850]

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

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro.

[@KRaikkonenSF]

This is pretty good, I'll show this to some people who are so obsessed with "psychology life hacks" that are actually based on BS such as "point your feet towards someone when talking for better communication" Some people need to understand most "life hacks" are snake oil, simple solutions to complex problems, sold by gurus.

[@minkusdraconus]

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

[@Spaceslugblob]

Help. The background music is stuck in my brain

[@BluueCheese]

Glad you brought him up because everyone is only talking about the woman that collaborated in some of his tests that also fabricated tests at Harvard. And yet he’s barely being mentioned

[@charlesferdinand422]

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

[@limaxim]

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

[@nicholaswoollhead6830]

Damn man. I was made to read so much of Arielis work for my bachelors in Economic Sociology. Thanks for brining this to my attention - I'll be passing it on to my uni

[@mycount64]

Sign a document top or bottom... I have no idea whether I signed at top or bottom. I do know when I am lying. No causation.

[@jon1907]

This is such a well edited video, super informative and kept my focus. One small suggestion would be to vary the background music, as the tune you have throughout can get a little irritating.

[@jusskrey]

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

[@anthonykennedy5324]

NO background music would be an improvement.

[@godlaydying]

I'm somewhat surprised that governments and companies that hire experts don't have a standard clause to the effect of "We're hiring you based on the assumption that you have properly performed this research, and if it ever turns out you didn't, you owe us our money back".

[@onemanturret1641]

Plus damages

[@TheZigzagman]

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

[@yacobgugsa2524]

​@@thr3treebase886A certified Tricia Cotham moment

[@skachor]

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

[@BurneyBurnerson]

Also interesting to note at the 8:00 minute mark when discussing replication of the studies - the meta analytic effect size of 0.11 also has confidence intervals which cross the threshold of 0, which many people interpret as being non-significant. Compared to the original study, which had a large effect size and did not cross 0 in the confidence intervals.

[@Palozon]

I mean, as far as academic fraud goes he really picked the funniest subject to lie about.

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro!

[@alchemist6098]

I don’t understand why Airely did not keep a set of research notebooks with numbered dated pages , signed and dated at the end of every entry. I thought this was common practice. I learned this skill when working in an industry that patented its products. If he did, he would have a guide to all data with references to any collaborators’ contributions

[@jumpinjohnnyruss]

Maybe he did...

[@2265Hello]

⁠​⁠@@jumpinjohnnyrussconsidering what happened I doubt it

[@isaacislaughter]

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

[@sudazima]

only in the hard sciences.

[@Jabranalibabry]

Same reason thieves don't leave their fingerprints everywhere

[@milton7763]

Dan: “Hey, can you write a different version of your e-mail which stated this study was never conducted the way I said it was, this time stating it was all as I said it was? Hello? Hello???”

[@mequable]

Up until now I've been hearing these stories about scientific fraud (and most recently fraud in psychology in particular)with some level of indifference, because I hadn't heard of any of the scientists. But this guy, I have seen a number of his speeches and I'm kind of shocked.

[@craftsmanceramics8653]

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

[@nunyabiznes33]

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

[@NoSaysJo]

​@craftsmanceramics8653 hindsight is nice isn't it buddy

[@craftsmanceramics8653]

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

[@craftsmanceramics8653]

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

[@nondescriptnyc]

What I find fascinating is that none of the peer reviewers or other experts that read Ariely papers (and similar papers that have now been red flagged) raised concerns about the dramatic results produced presumably through very subtle manipulation of independent variables (e.g., signing at the top vs the bottom; power posing; warm vs. cold beverage; bringing Biblical references vs. not, etc. etc.). I guess hindsight is 20/20…

[@geometerfpv2804]

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

[@combinationova]

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

[@bakedbeings]

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

[@RenegadeContext]

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

[@nondescriptnyc]

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

[@Anthro006]

Really enjoyed the information, perspective and reasonably thorough investigation. Really struggled to get through it with the music background.

[@Kabitu1]

This is the problem with some scientists becoming popular science communicators and speakers. On the surface it feels like a positive to have these people, but their new job comes with new success criteria and new goals. Ariely now finds himself in a game where he has to be interesting to win, and stay interesting with new findings. We should expect that to warp any persons relationship to making good resesarch.

[@seeinred]

What's the worst about cases like this, is that you start questioning not only this one (or several) individuals and validity of their findings, but the entire field of academia. Especially when it comes to something so important as psychology. False data in such fields can and will ruin people's lifes, and so you loose faith in validity of the entire field. And that's really dangerous thing, since our entire society hangs on the fact that we believe in what we were educated about.

[@faithlesshound5621]

Most societies hang on religious ideas, which are almost wholly made up. We only got anywhere in science when we stopped believing what we were told and began to look for ourselves. However, "not believing in science" usually means not thorough-going empiricism but giving wholesale credence to some antique fraud.

[@hopesy12u4]

Pretty fucking much, yeah.

[@OfAngelsAndAnarchist]

It’s a shame that people live in a world of concepts and not actually in reality It’s right here right now

[@claudiubele4892]

that's why ImmaterialAI works (helps you get out of stress, depression, anxiety, etc permanently in one night or so) - I made it, there's no study but if you look at what the people are saying or try it yourself you'll see its really life-changing and understand how suffering, anxiety, etc is bullshit people believe in reflected back in their mind and the only medicine is to stop believing/attaching to them. A study or more showing we actually are effective would be nice, but so far we go for getting to user to experience the actual help for free anywhere instead of putting the money and energy into studies and having users trust those. Actual experience > trust, belief, thoughts, feelings Better go for trying it than for any spoilers as they might be biased (like false data)

[@GrayCatbird1]

The thing is it seems for now there’s no better alternative. Even if misconceptions can stand for decades and some people become stars, eventually additional research and data can put things into question and set the record straight, as it did in this case. However, it’s obvious that the desperate need for funding and recognition to get anywhere that create the “publish or die” framework is a real hindrance to faster accurate progress. Perhaps there needs more consequences for fabrication- and less for carefulness.

[@shivalishankersharma1562]

Him trying to flirt with Amie with “i miss our early days” and “irrationally yours” had me in knots 😂

[@johnplayeren]

This made me very sad - I wasn't aware of the controversy around his findings until I saw your video. As a consultant I have used his work as basis for my work in improving organizational outcomes for nearly 2 decades, and I'm currently unsure on how I should proceed from here. There's no doubt we created measurable(!) positive outcomes in the organizations I worked with - but I now wonder how much of that was based on our process designs, and how much was simply the momentum we created through the change process (basically cheer-leading them to success). This really sucks.

[@SeptemberChild1835]

Bro. 😔

[@jamesbizs]

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

[@SeptemberChild1835]

@@jamesbizs Bro?

[@Hydrogen101]

Wow. I looked up to Ariely. I bought all his books and worked some of his research findings into my classes and talks. This is as bad as VW’s Diesel Gate, and I promoted VW in some engineering talks I gave. Thanks for making this, I had to hear it myself and it’s damning. Cest la vie

[@MayorSom]

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

[@pastryshack551]

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

[@PriHL]

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

[@AffaanMustafa]

i’m also undergrad double in math and econ at UCSD and my professors worked with ariely on numerous books and papers as well as we had to read his book in our literal ethics class, when this broke out it was insane, and i wonder if any of the research we do here at UCSDs rady behavioral economics unit is also tainted by this data manipulation

[@AffaanMustafa]

it so sad because my advisor professor whom i really like worked with him and author of freakonomics and she was on the freakonomics podcast (Anya Samek) so i wonder how this affected her and maybe even her credibility although nothing of hers was affected by this i believe but this is not good for the field whatsoever.

[@AffaanMustafa]

I couldn’t collect enough data to make causal inference or statistical validation on a large enough scale even though the p value was close, you know what I did? Still published and found that our experiment was inconclusive but paves way for future experimenters with larger datasets to come to a conclusion, not delete some values in one direction so i could get my p value sub 0.05.

[@JW-vi2nh]

This was a fantastic video. I just watched a different video about the president of Stanford University being busted for "manipulating" data. It gives me so many mixed emotions, knowing that there is so much incentive to be dishonest in the world of academia. Like so much else in this world, it seems that good and honest people are punished while the most ruthless and dishonest among us are given everything. As silly as it may sound, I have become conditioned to immediately disregard anything that is said by someone on stage in front of an audience wearing a headset. It always seems to pretentious to me, like they just seem like they think they're oh so important and expect the audience to hang onto their every word, oohing and ahhing and applauding constantly. Every time I see it, I think of cult leaders, MLM conventions and those cheesy infomercials from the late 90s and early 2000s.

[@johng3418]

Agreed. It's similar to "the SM7B effect" where speaking into those big black podcast microphones immediately endows the speaker with an inflated sense of their own importance. The microphone/amplification effect adds legitimacy without foundation and most audiences seem to think less critically if there is a stage/studio environment bolstering the speaker.

[@AlexPadula]

Great video! Only suggestion is if you could reduce the volume of the background music. It can be hard to make out what people are saying 11:58

[@_quant]

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

[@ib7566]

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

[@zarasbazaar]

Many people are sensitive to music. The repetitive music in the background makes this video unwatchable.

[@fungalbob]

Agreed. I had to stop

[@iamamish]

Ariely's response to the fraud is so telling. The first sentence, "I appreciate the efforts to bring to light this analysis about the data that was used in the experiment that I led more than ten years ago". Notice the distancing language of, "more than 10 years ago". What on earth does that have to do with any of this? If you were actually innocent you wouldn't write like that. The fact that he tries to throw the insurance company under the bus is amazing. I don't know the exact details but AFAIK, they were never identified (why?) until last month, when they came forward and confirmed what we already knew - Dan modified the data, not the insurance company. Really great video and really nice job explaining some of the technical details of the fraud. Finding the right level of detail for a video like this isn't easy.

[@matheusjahnke8643]

... isn't it a good idea to be distancing the author from their ideas(so we don't do collateral damage)? Aren't scientists supposed to not feel like their experiments and ideas are their children to be protected from bad people(tm) out there(tm), but tools to be sharpened by confrontation with other ideas?

[@iamamish]

@@matheusjahnke8643 I think I agree, but I'm not sure what the relevance is, or if you're arguing against something I wrote. Can you please explain?

[@matheusjahnke8643]

@@iamamish I think that sentence might not be as indicative of fraud as you suggested. His case was quite damning, so the sentence might seem like that. But I don't that statement is(without the whole context) like indication of someone trying to distance themselves to cover their asses. I might have gotten a little affected by "If you were actually innocent you wouldn't write like that." (this is quite unrelated... but shorty: there's a reason why you have the right to remain silent when questioned by the police...)

[@iamamish]

@@matheusjahnke8643 I agree that it isn't strong evidence of fraud - that evidence is elsewhere, so we know he did commit fraud. It is however a very strange thing to say, and not the sort of thing most people would say. What is the relevance of pointing out that it happened 10 years ago, except to try and diffuse responsibility?

[@matheusjahnke8643]

​@@iamamish maybe to differentiate between other experiments one did(did he do other experiments?)? maybe to distance, but in a constructive way(that was 10 years ago.... don't really mind if you tear it apart). You know there's the kinda iconic Miranda warning "anything you may be used against you?"(and the fact that you have the right to remain silent)... even if you are innocent, unless you are well prepared, you will say stuff which will be picked apart by someone experienced in that(like police or prosecutors... or just lawyers). At that point we know he most likely committed fraud... so anything he says is, by definition, what someone who is guilty would say. Then prosecution goes "Would an innocent say that?".... well... maybe, I think an amount not insignificant would.

[@the_one_eyed_man_is_cursed]

Damn! When I think of the times I've quoted Ariely's conclusions and shared his TED talks - I feel like a bit of a fool. Personal observation: I had an irrationally stronger belief in Ariely's findings due to his disfigurement. I once watched a TED where he described the painful daily changing of his bandages and perhaps because I empathized with his trauma, I may have encouraged a 'halo bias'. Even now, I am saddened much more than angered by these revelations of deceit.

[@emilysha418]

+1

[@spacecoyote6646]

What is with the weird "music" in the background. It's too loud and distracts from the words

[@astropgn]

I remember buying one of his books after watching his ted talk, like 10 years ago, and the book was so strange. It felt so... I don't know how to describe it. Superficial? The examples were all weird because they pretended to be a real example but they all felt forged. There was always the same structure for any anecdotal example he gave.

[@Rosalies_]

Nice analysis. I used to do BS-level physics research so the struggle hits home a bit, but this tarnishing of academia is really frustrating. Public relations with science are tumultuous right now, and this kind of fraud is a huge win for the distrust.

[@geometerfpv2804]

Well, the distrust is justified. I'm a researcher in math. "Peer-reviewed study" doesn't mean anything anymore. We spend so little time on peer-review; it's not incentivised in the publish-or-perish world. When I go to use a study in math, I have to read it and analyze it and figure out whether the author is legit...the fact that it's published doesn't mean much to me.

[@larrymorris1718]

The problem is that there is probably more bad research out there then there is good. That includes everything from Pharamcuticals, Mathematics, to nutrition, to global climate change, to the myriad causes of cancer and the plethora of other medical inadequacies. Journalists, who write about it, don't read it or barley comprehend it and sell it to the masses. True researchers, spend huge amounts of time just trying to get through the mass of data trying to locate something of relevance to their own study. Then have to proof it to see if it is even useable. So, the public ends up with all these charlatans selling snake oil about everything under the sun based on research that it is totally suspect. The public is told to trust the science, because its science, and they have a wealth of data to prove it. Even though that wealth of data is mostly wrong, faked and of no real use at all. This is a really sad state to be in if you're a scientist or researcher in this day and age. Worse for the public. They are looking for answers and can only find the snake oil salesman, with governments supporting them. The Salesman & Lawyers win and everyone else pays the price for it.

[@Aurantix]

I did short term research in chemical engineering, the pressure to publish was unbearable, and of course you had to publish only successful data, negative results were unacceptable, not to mention the competitiveness, combined with barely livable wages. And people wonder why fraud in Academia is rampant, the whole system is primed to promote fraud, in any field.

[@luca57882]

This is why I cringe so hard when people say "I believe in science!" Instead of saying "I believe in what I saw, read about and thought about" When you start reading studies you realize it's all just a bussines and only sensazional results get published because 💰💰💰

[@antibioticaddict]

I love your old school documentary style. It's just relaxed enough that I can sit down on my bed in a dark room and enjoy it, while also feeling tension and apprehension about what is going to happen next. It's a far cry from modern docuseries that are just so bland and meaingless.

[@athos5761]

This is why research findings need to be replicable 👌

[@TheJhtlag]

But that's always been an understood point.

[@athos5761]

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

[@psychotropicalresearch5653]

Have you seen the research where he demonstrated that the background music you play on your videos has a profound effect on whether people like them or not!

[@lauracoleman8796]

I thought this fellow looked familiar; it’s not that often that you encounter a face like his. I realized while watching this that he is the same off-putting academic interviewed in the Elizabeth Holmes documentary by Alex Gibney that was released back in 2019. From the very beginning, he deftly tries to muddy the waters and frame Holmes in a much more favorable light than she actually deserves, clearly trying to humanize her and make her absolutely deplorable behavior seem completely understandable, perhaps even relatable-after all, “nobody questions that her motives were positive” (these were his exact words), essentially proffering up the tired excuse that she “had only the best of intentions”. Which is utter horseshit, as she clearly only started the whole endeavor that would go on to become the nightmare that was Theranos for the sake of obtaining exalted public status, enormous wealth, and the fawning adoration of both the elite and the masses alike. She could not have given less of a fuck about actually helping people and contributing something meaningful to humanity; she just wanted all the spoils without having to do any of the actual scientific work herself. This man is nothing but a charlatan; I’ve been completely put off by him from the moment he spouted off his specious bullshit nonsense in just the first five minutes of “The Inventor.” What a complete joke of a human being. (It’s also unfortunate to have learned that he was apparently a protege of Daniel Kahneman. It’s hardly surprising for Ariely to be a fraud, but were I to learn that Kahneman was also full of it, then that would be a much deeper breach of trust in the integrity of the academic discipline of psychology.)

[@orca9781]

I wish the video was as angry as you lol .. He deserves to be outright disrespected

[@threethrushes]

Ultimately, Ariely has proved his own thesis with a stunning n=1, longitudinal study: people are irrational. He must have known that his fraud would catch up with him. Reputation and one's own integrity are the sword and shield we carry in life. Could you imagine waking up every day and knowing that your life is based on continuous fraud, lies, dishonesty? The cognitive dissonance experienced by the likes of Ariely, Vaknin, et al. must be huge.

[@E8oL4]

I mean, Kahnemann has similarly surprising findings. Did anybody look into his research? 👀 Really hope he's legit, though.

[@robsim]

@@E8oL4 kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5jVYqh4l7OEatk

[@brdrnda3805]

@@E8oL4 Kahnemann is not without fault either. Google for "Reconstruction of a Train Wreck: How Priming Research Went off the rails". It's a blog entry from 2017 on replicationindex. A link to Kahnemanns reaction on his blog is also included. But of course it's still a completely different thing than the Ariely story.