[jtrn]

As a clinical psychologist, I find it increasingly frustrating to sift through research studies that fail to meet even the most basic standards of scientific rigor. The sheer volume of studies that claim “X is linked to Y” without properly addressing the correlation-versus-causation fallacy is staggering. It’s not just an oversight—it’s a fundamental flaw that undermines the credibility and utility of psychological research.

If a study is publicly funded, there should be a minimum requirement: it must include at least two research arms—one with an experimentally manipulated variable and a proper control condition. Furthermore, no study should be considered conclusive until its findings have been successfully replicated, demonstrating a consistent predictive effect. This isn’t an unreasonable demand; it’s the foundation of real science. Yet, in clinical psychology, spineless researchers and overly cautious annd/or power crazed ethics committees have effectively neutered most studies into passive, observational, and ultimately useless exercises in statistical storytelling.

And for the love of all that is scientific, we need to stop the obsession with p-values. Statistical significance is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into real-world impact. Instead of reporting p-values as if they prove anything on their own, researchers should prioritize effect sizes that demonstrate meaningful clinical relevance. Otherwise, we’re left with a field drowning in “statistically significant” noise—impressive on paper but useless in practice.

[gloomyday]

Obsessing with p-values while at the same time shunning replication studies and studies with negative results is a catastrophe. It causes everyone to be confidently wrong way more often than one would think at first.

What worth is a result with p<0.01 when the 10 previous articles with negative results were never actually written?

[parpfish]

another contributing factor is that in psychology (and possibly other fields), it's very hard to make a career doing rigorous, incremental science that results in confident outcomes because each step along the way, people just way "yeah, sounds about right".

to make a career, you need to discovering quirky counterintuitive findings that can be turned into ted talks and 'one weird trick' clickbait. you become a big deal once you start providing fodder for the annoying "well, actually..." guy to drop on people at a dinner party/reddit comment section.