

The statistical error that just keeps on coming - amirmc
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/bad-science-research-error

======
aangjie
Actually, i look at from the Game theory viewpoint. What metrics are the
rewards in an academic career based on?? Publications. It's rather simple that
the researchers will find ways(shortcuts) to maximize that. Ofcourse, the
Impact Factor is a new evolving measure too. But I think it's only harder to
hack, as it needs social hacking skills.(That too very subtly via written
text).

~~~
amirmc
> _"It's rather simple that the researchers will find ways(shortcuts) to
> maximize that."_

I agree with the issue about how academics are measured but I find this leap
to be grossly unfair (and from experience, completely untrue).

There _is_ an issue that academics may not fully understand statistical
methods. I think this is likely due to the more sophisticated experiments
being developed that necessitate more mathematical rigour during analysis.

Suggesting that academics are simply trying to 'game' the system is ludicrous.

Also, I wanted to point to this comment on the OP. It talks about how a
psychologist would have dealt with the experiment described.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-
permalink/12344...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-
permalink/12344150)

~~~
aangjie
> Suggesting that academics are simply trying to 'game' the system is
> ludicrous. I am trying to suggest that academics are deliberately trying to
> game the system. Only observing that if it were a simulation a rational
> agent would follow that specific strategy. Luckily, most people are not
> perfect rational agents and so science progresses faster. Sorry my comment
> came across that way. > It talks about how a psychologist would have dealt
> with the experiment described.
> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-
> permalink/12344...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-
> permalink/12344..). I spent studying cog. sci in a psychology department for
> two years. I know it's true, but to be fair, the amount of work involved in
> the experiments is huge too.

~~~
amirmc
> _"I am trying to suggest that academics are deliberately trying to game the
> system"_

Did you mean "I am _not_ trying to suggest..."? Otherwise I'm confused.

In general, I don't think it's helpful to think of things like this from a
purely rational, game-theoretic perspective. As you mention, humans are not
rational & there isn't perfect information. Also, it involves too many
assumptions about what might drive people (eg it's not just about publication
lists).

~~~
aangjie
OOps, Yeah i meant "I am not trying to suggest".. //drives of people Yeah, we
agree on that.

