I really don’t read many psychology journal articles, but my experience so far is that the median paper from the 1970s is way more trustworthy (less untrustworthy?) than the median study from the 1990s or later. In other words, I think the Stanford Prison Experiment was a bad apple rather than a representative example of 1970s psychology research. (I’m interested in other people’s opinions though.)
Yeah, that does sound plausible. Though I also think about Robber Creek (sp?), and notice that like, most famous psych studies from before I was born turned out to be atrocious, and reason from there. Though on the other hand, academic incentives have been getting sharper and sharper since like, I don't know, post WW2? So the material incentive to be fraudulent is higher, and there are way more sophisticated statistical/rhetorical methods to do so.
I really don’t read many psychology journal articles, but my experience so far is that the median paper from the 1970s is way more trustworthy (less untrustworthy?) than the median study from the 1990s or later. In other words, I think the Stanford Prison Experiment was a bad apple rather than a representative example of 1970s psychology research. (I’m interested in other people’s opinions though.)
Yeah, that does sound plausible. Though I also think about Robber Creek (sp?), and notice that like, most famous psych studies from before I was born turned out to be atrocious, and reason from there. Though on the other hand, academic incentives have been getting sharper and sharper since like, I don't know, post WW2? So the material incentive to be fraudulent is higher, and there are way more sophisticated statistical/rhetorical methods to do so.