“Rebel Talent: Why It Pays To Break The Rules At Work And In Life.”
This is really good. It would be great to have Francesca Gino, Elizabeth Holmes, and Sam Bankman-Fraud interview each other and then do a book together with OJ Simpson as the editor. The book could be called, “If They Did It.”
Gino coauthor Dan Ariely (also found responsible for fraud) actually appeared on an Elizabeth Holmes documentary to discuss “potential reasons why Holmes could have given such barefaced lies to the media and her colleagues about how her company operated.” It’s incredible irony.
Years ago, I would have thought of Harvard as a top university where the best of the best teach. But now, years later, I simply take it for granted that any professor of any subject at Harvard is a loon. So, sight unseen, and knowing nothing about the details, I find a smug satisfaction in one of these professors getting a comeuppance. I just take it for granted that any professor at Harvard is a nutcase Maoist totalitarian globalist favoring baby murder and child mutilation and ending free speech. So, the exposure and takedown of these monsters has got to be a good thing. I can enjoy deep cup of schadenfreude at the fall of any Harvard professor without even needing to dig into the details.
Very nice intro. I like the writing, and it's good that you exercise your skill by praising people sometimes as well as by condemning them, as well as healthy for your state of mind.
It is a meaningful finding and throws lots of papers into question, but the calcChain smoking gun, even a layperson could figure out *if they knew what they were looking for* and why it mattered. And you've been at this long enough that surely you can do this?
It would take training and studying to be able to look at the hand-moved data, understand why the p value is important, calculate the p value, see that it's minimal, and thus conclude with near-certainty the manipulation took place to establish a positive result. But calcChain... don't sell yourself short. Open documents, see if something is out of order - if it is, dig further.
Do you think that's what these guys do? They just pick papers at random and tirelessly go through each one by hand until they find something fishy?
I doubt that's the case. If I had to guess, they probably do two things:
1) Cultivate relationships in academia and get tips
2) Look at "too good to be true" publications with a critical eye
No, it's not easy, and a single person can't do much except try to follow that pattern.
Anyway... I just prefer more exclusives and more muckraking journalism rather than being first (you weren't, by the way) to publish a link to something else.
One of the prime talents of a good empirical economist is to be able to guess where a situation is that will yield interesting results with formal analysis. Thus, they can "smell" fishy results.
Dishonest Dan. How ironic! Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, the televangelist, who was repeatedly caught with prostitutes. Elite education and science keeps taking hits. Chris, I think you could go a long way with you Substack if all you were ever able to establish is who published their datasets. If they cannot publish them they need to submit them to independent auditors with a convincing reason for their inability to publish the data.
The integrity of our institutions continues to circle the drain.
“QUALTRICS” software 😂😂😂 This Series needs to be an Indie-InvestigativeJournalism vid complete w/Connect-The-Dotz Graphics on “Quality of [data-manipulated]Tricks”
“Rebel Talent: Why It Pays To Break The Rules At Work And In Life.”
This is really good. It would be great to have Francesca Gino, Elizabeth Holmes, and Sam Bankman-Fraud interview each other and then do a book together with OJ Simpson as the editor. The book could be called, “If They Did It.”
Gino coauthor Dan Ariely (also found responsible for fraud) actually appeared on an Elizabeth Holmes documentary to discuss “potential reasons why Holmes could have given such barefaced lies to the media and her colleagues about how her company operated.” It’s incredible irony.
https://infovores.substack.com/p/strauss-vindicated-hints-of-wrongdoing
Fantastic. Get these sociopaths out of careerist science.
Not as confident as you are that the New Woke Times or the WaPo will report it, but we'll see.
Gino has featured in the Times before. She's not a minor figure in academia or in popular academics like TED. They will cover this.
I am pleased to confirm that your prediction was correct and my skepticism was wrong! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/24/business/economy/francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty.html
Good to see!
Years ago, I would have thought of Harvard as a top university where the best of the best teach. But now, years later, I simply take it for granted that any professor of any subject at Harvard is a loon. So, sight unseen, and knowing nothing about the details, I find a smug satisfaction in one of these professors getting a comeuppance. I just take it for granted that any professor at Harvard is a nutcase Maoist totalitarian globalist favoring baby murder and child mutilation and ending free speech. So, the exposure and takedown of these monsters has got to be a good thing. I can enjoy deep cup of schadenfreude at the fall of any Harvard professor without even needing to dig into the details.
Their recent recruit from Chicago would tend to support your thesis.
Between this and the Harvard Morgue Manager caught selling body parts, seems Harvard needs some help in their hiring department.
Very nice intro. I like the writing, and it's good that you exercise your skill by praising people sometimes as well as by condemning them, as well as healthy for your state of mind.
It is a meaningful finding and throws lots of papers into question, but the calcChain smoking gun, even a layperson could figure out *if they knew what they were looking for* and why it mattered. And you've been at this long enough that surely you can do this?
It would take training and studying to be able to look at the hand-moved data, understand why the p value is important, calculate the p value, see that it's minimal, and thus conclude with near-certainty the manipulation took place to establish a positive result. But calcChain... don't sell yourself short. Open documents, see if something is out of order - if it is, dig further.
easy to do if you know what you are looking for
harder to comb aimlessly through thousands of papers pick out mistakes like this
Do you think that's what these guys do? They just pick papers at random and tirelessly go through each one by hand until they find something fishy?
I doubt that's the case. If I had to guess, they probably do two things:
1) Cultivate relationships in academia and get tips
2) Look at "too good to be true" publications with a critical eye
No, it's not easy, and a single person can't do much except try to follow that pattern.
Anyway... I just prefer more exclusives and more muckraking journalism rather than being first (you weren't, by the way) to publish a link to something else.
yeah i just saw The Chronicle of Higher Education covered it
haven't seen any big outlets cover it
One of the prime talents of a good empirical economist is to be able to guess where a situation is that will yield interesting results with formal analysis. Thus, they can "smell" fishy results.
typo:
"Why is pays to break the rules in work and life"
is pays -> it pays
Dishonest Dan. How ironic! Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, the televangelist, who was repeatedly caught with prostitutes. Elite education and science keeps taking hits. Chris, I think you could go a long way with you Substack if all you were ever able to establish is who published their datasets. If they cannot publish them they need to submit them to independent auditors with a convincing reason for their inability to publish the data.
The integrity of our institutions continues to circle the drain.
So How many more?
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/soccer-coachs-lost-phone-contained-videos-of-him-raping-boys-tennessee-police
There will be Thousands if not Millions Exposed.
Dirty Deeds?
“QUALTRICS” software 😂😂😂 This Series needs to be an Indie-InvestigativeJournalism vid complete w/Connect-The-Dotz Graphics on “Quality of [data-manipulated]Tricks”
What was the conclusion of the studies that were faked? Let me guess, they all had a political angle to them?
This has not been a good week for Harvard. First the morgue, now this. What else is going on there?
Doesn't this cast suspicion on Ariely for faking the auto insurance data?
Ariely has already withdrawn one study for fake data.
Yes he has a million red flags
He could be next
Or he could get away with it. Duke doesn’t seem to care