Dishonest research about dishonesty

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
sTeamTraen
After Pie
Posts: 2084
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by sTeamTraen » Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:36 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:56 am
sTeamTraen wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:50 am
Taleb has blocked me on Twitter
Lolz, is there a good story there?
I literally tweeted this https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1 ... 88034?s=19 and he obliged within the hour.
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 6785
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:35 am

sTeamTraen wrote:
Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:36 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:56 am
sTeamTraen wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:50 am
Taleb has blocked me on Twitter
Lolz, is there a good story there?
I literally tweeted this https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1 ... 88034?s=19 and he obliged within the hour.
Hahaha oh wow

Surprisingly thin skinned for someone who likes to use his own platform to berate others.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:37 am

sTeamTraen wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:38 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:09 am
Why the complicated keyboard entry scheme? Just use a mouse!
The interface was apparently designed to be used by the participant's non-dominant hand, for some reason. :lol:
I noticed that in the paper, but surely nearly everyone can use a mouse with either hand?

But that made me look again and realise that the diagram of the keys uses a numeric keypad, which is strongly biased towards right-hand use. Furthermore, the computers were laptops, which don't have numeric keypads (some re-use the main keyboard, but then the layout isn't as shown). Maybe the participants were supplied with separate numeric keypads. The design is unusual - most have a + key which is double size, but I have found one which matches: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adesso-2-4ghz- ... B078TG1WZ4 which I notice is "spill resistant" and maybe that was a criterion. Or, of course, the person drawing the diagram forgot what the layout looked like.

I notice that Dan's website has handy collections of papers at https://danariely.com/resources/#research so if anyone has lots of time on their hands they could pick some at random and see if there's anything interesting in them.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
sTeamTraen
After Pie
Posts: 2084
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by sTeamTraen » Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:59 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:37 am
sTeamTraen wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:38 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:09 am
Why the complicated keyboard entry scheme? Just use a mouse!
The interface was apparently designed to be used by the participant's non-dominant hand, for some reason. :lol:
I noticed that in the paper, but surely nearly everyone can use a mouse with either hand?
I can't. Completely useless. Even if I reassign the buttons.
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 2217
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by Stephanie » Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:52 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:09 am
sTeamTraen wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:25 am
Have a look at The Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making
and think how it might work. In one of his books Ariely tosses off a remark about "a darkened room and a copy of Playboy", which seems self-contradictory.
There's a fair bit in there that I don't understand or seems wrong. Why the complicated keyboard entry scheme? Just use a mouse! And if you have a "discrete scale with twenty-six steps" why convert that to 0..100 instead of just leaving it? And what is meant by "twenty six steps"? Since the middle value is supposed to be neutral, you need an odd number of steps. Does it mean 0..26? And the labels on the scale are "No...Possibly...Yes", yet the meanings of the questions seem to require it to mean "Dislike ... Neutral ... Like". Why isn't there a screenshot rather than the figure which is quite obviously not the real thing as it has far too little space for the questions? What p.rn was supplied for the pictures? Did the experiment assume that everyone's tastes are the same or include a variety? (Though the answers seem to be more like one person answering 35 times than 35 people answering once, so maybe the tastes were identical). Why is the least popular answer for the aroused state "Can you imagine having sex with a man?" - this means that out of 24 UCB male students none of them was gay or even slightly bi. Note that this answer beats even the questons on a 12-year old girl and animals. How do you know when you're 75% aroused? What does that even mean? Very trusting to allow 35 subjects to take the experimental laptops away for a day. Does that mean there were 35 laptops, or the experiment only used a few subjects at a time? If there was one laptop that would take 71 days, so presumably several were used.

This point may apply to many other papers: it states that particpiants were paid at $10 per session, so that's $710, but the paper does not acknowledge any funding source. Does this mean the authors paid out of their own pockets? Or one of their institutions did? If so, someone might be able to check financial records and verify how much was paid and when (not much chance as the amount is so low and it's so long ago).

I'd have to agree that the standard deviations and p values are most impressive. I'd like to see the underlying data. I'm sure it would be very informative.

And since people seem to have overlooked the link that Sciolus posted above to the first paper, here it is again: Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end
Yes, some of the answers made me raise my eyebrow.

Also the weird cartoon image of the p.rn was very odd.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:38 am

sTeamTraen wrote:
Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:59 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:37 am
sTeamTraen wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:38 pm


The interface was apparently designed to be used by the participant's non-dominant hand, for some reason. :lol:
I noticed that in the paper, but surely nearly everyone can use a mouse with either hand?
I can't. Completely useless. Even if I reassign the buttons.
What about the other one-handed operation that this study required? Does that also require a specific hand?
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
sTeamTraen
After Pie
Posts: 2084
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by sTeamTraen » Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:02 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:38 am
What about the other one-handed operation that this study required? Does that also require a specific hand?
So I'm told. Otherwise it feels like someone else is doing it. Probably very badly in my case.
Something something hammer something something nail

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:20 am

sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:02 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:38 am
What about the other one-handed operation that this study required? Does that also require a specific hand?
So I'm told. Otherwise it feels like someone else is doing it. Probably very badly in my case.
I thought it was supposed to be an advantage to feel as if someone else is doing it!
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

IvanV
Snowbonk
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by IvanV » Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:24 pm

It's taken till yesterday for a copy of the Economist with the nice graphs to arrive on my doormat, and allow me to read the accompanying article.

I'm entertained to see it was Ariely who wrote the book The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How we lie to everyone - Especially ourselves

Michael S Roth's review nicely encapsulates it:
Ariely raises the bar for everyone. In the increasingly crowded field of popular cognitive science and behavioral economics, he writes with an unusual combination of verve and sagacity. He asks us to remember our fallibility and irrationality, so that we might protect ourselves against our tendency to fool ourselves.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2817
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Dishonest research about dishonesty

Post by jimbob » Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:01 am

sTeamTraen wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:29 am
secret squirrel wrote:
Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:21 am
The result reported in the original paper is one of those things that just looks obviously false. Like, even if there were an effect from doing something like that, it would be so thoroughly drowned out by the noise of human existence that any positive result reported from a paper not going to extreme lengths to detect it is far more likely to be experiment error or fraud.
The entire premise of TED-talk gee-whiz social psychology is that there are large true effects out there which, although they can only be detected by charismatic social scientists in cute experiments that are written up in vague terms so that any specific claim can be denied later, nevertheless can bring success in one's personal or business life using this One Weird Trick in an airport book that sells for a bargain $22.99.
Nicely put
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Post Reply