HN user
John Ioannidis, the guy behind "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" has recently gone after nutrition research. Turns out that nutritional studies are basically devoid of value. After decades of nutrition research we know almost nothing about how to eat healthy.
It doesn't really matter if it's peer-reviewed or how many variables they controlled for. It's still an observational study and not a randomized controlled trial.
Anyone else here not even bother reading about new psychology findings? Ever since learning about the "replication crisis" and seeing how so much popular psychology has fallen victim to it (e.g. priming, ego depletion, power poses, impicit bias, stereotype threat)
I wonder if news organizations will bring in rules not to report on them until there's been a number of successful replications. They just mislead people.
Banning all those accounts based on a tiny minority of tweets promoting fake election dates seems like totally bs reasoning. If their reasoning for the bans was actually a policy against "dehumanizing speech" as some have said, then why not ban everyone who tries to dehumanize a Trump supporter with an accusation of them being a "Russian bot?" Or what about dehumanizing language against opponents like racist/sexist/Nazi/homophobic/transophobic etc?
Also.. I think this meme has a grain of truth to it - I don't know about the political aspect, but as to people's minds generating the same content and repeating the same phrases over and over: it seems as if our popular media is pretty limited in the things journalists and TV hosts are "allowed" to cover and say. Late night hosts all seem the same. That's one reason I enjoy 4chan, because the content is so diverse.