Has anyone found this paper? I searched a few years ago and couldn't find anything.
I suspect it may be a joke Feynman played on us to prove a point. :)
I was giving a talk where I was going to refer to Feynman's speech and I felt I needed to fact-check it.
(I ended up using the speech in the talk I was giving, but I did give a hint at the end that perhaps this speech might possibly contain a joke at our expense, or something along those lines. So as to not look like a total idiot if someone else did a better job of checking the speech faster than I had done :-))
So kudos to you @killjoywashere :-)
rat paper still missing
The 1945 one sounds closest: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012277991?type%5B%5D=a...
The professor that discovered this phenomena had a famous TED talk, a bestselling book, switched her faculty position to Harvard, and basically rode that to success in her professional and public life.
All of this came crashing down when no one could replicate her experiments. It’s absolutely incredible that things got this far in science, or at least the soft sciences. Shameful
I've seen the above happen, and it can be caused by a perverse fact one of my mentors told me in grad school: "Bad data almost always looks interesting." Cold fusion started out as bad data, and looked very interesting. Those faster-than-light neutrinos that were in the news several years ago were bad data. When I was a kid in the 1960s, there were numerous reports of exoplanet detections - all were bad data. Etc.
In 1996, a physics professor submitted a nonsense paper saying that reality doesn't exist and gravity is a social construct. The reviewers didn't understand the paper, but published it anyway since it had all the right political buzzwords.
A topic closer to home for most of us might be benchmarking. It is terribly difficult to construct an honest A/B comparison between two different algorithms, especially when the person doing the testing designed B themselves.
Now, your reproducible results may or may not be fair, but that's an issue further down the line.
... basically rode that to success in her professional and public life
Looks like the experiment has been successfully implemented in real life.
Basically, the act of physically smiling may influence the emotion (usually it's the other way around)
People use the word "soft" to describe any kind of scientific research that makes them uncomfortable, no matter the legitimacy. The social sciences are soft, psychology is soft, economics is soft, etc. It's a moving goal-post, when there are social scientists and psychologists who do very "hard" scientific research (and vice-versa).
Chemical changes are "hard", but "power pose" and "improvements to your abilities" may be "soft".
I have since developed a very soft criterion for what I call science. Roughly...stuff that advances our understanding of the world and is conducted in a rigorous way.
* Use hadoop/latest distributed computing with data that fits on one machine
* Use way higher variance models than necessary for the problem at hand
And in general just cargo cult what the big players are doing when it's unnecessarily complex for the size of the business.
Not sure that's obvious. Crime has steadily fallen. Particular practices may not stand up to scrutiny, but I'm guessing a lot of it does kind of work.