[andrewla]

Yes, I think that confirmation bias is very strong here.

My rule for analyzing social science articles is pretty simple: If the study contradicts your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery.

If, on the other hand, the study confirms your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery.

[dolni]

More important than that is the result of the Grievance Studies affair.

When there is such heavily biased review of social science papers, it calls the legitimacy of all of them into question.

[Blikkentrekker]

My rule for analyzing social science is: “it's bullshit till proven otherwise.”.

The simple fact is that I cannot ever think of any solid methodology to investigate a “link” between these two things and that the man who devises it would deliver a rather groundbreaking idea.

How would a study such as this even work?; it's all Quatsch.

[andrewla]

The only difference between your view and mine is this:

> till proven otherwise

It's still bullshit even if proven otherwise. If I roll my magic dice and determine that it's going to rain tomorrow, and it ends up raining, this in no way validates my methodology.