The following excerpt is from “Reproducibility of Research – Do We Have a Problem Houston?”
The Column, 19 January 2016 Volume 12 Issue 1
Even the most ethical of researchers are susceptible to self-deception; outlined below are a few of the reasons why:
●Hypothesis Myopia — A natural inclination to favor only one hypothesis and look for evidence to
support it, while playing down evidence against it…
●Sharpshooter — Fire off a random series of shots, then draw a target around the bullet holes to ensure the highest number of bullseyes.
●Asymmetric Attention (Disconfirmation Bias) — Giving the expected results smiling approval, while unexpected results are blamed on experimental procedure or error rather than being accepted as a true challenge to your hypothesis.
●Just-So Storytelling — Finding rational explanations to fit the data after the fact. The problem is, we can find a story to fit just about every type of data. Also known as JARKing — “justifying after the results are known” —because it’s really difficult to go back and start again once we are at the end of the process.
●The Ikea Effect — Everyone has a vested interest in loving the furniture they built themselves.
I view your definitions of a Consensus-follower and a Contrarian as two sides of the same coin. They both suffer from Hypothesis Myopia.
Thanks for commenting, Dan! I had not heard of that article before, but found it downloaded it to read later. Your list of reasons why researchers can delude themselves is spot-on.
The following excerpt is from “Reproducibility of Research – Do We Have a Problem Houston?”
The Column, 19 January 2016 Volume 12 Issue 1
Even the most ethical of researchers are susceptible to self-deception; outlined below are a few of the reasons why:
●Hypothesis Myopia — A natural inclination to favor only one hypothesis and look for evidence to
support it, while playing down evidence against it…
●Sharpshooter — Fire off a random series of shots, then draw a target around the bullet holes to ensure the highest number of bullseyes.
●Asymmetric Attention (Disconfirmation Bias) — Giving the expected results smiling approval, while unexpected results are blamed on experimental procedure or error rather than being accepted as a true challenge to your hypothesis.
●Just-So Storytelling — Finding rational explanations to fit the data after the fact. The problem is, we can find a story to fit just about every type of data. Also known as JARKing — “justifying after the results are known” —because it’s really difficult to go back and start again once we are at the end of the process.
●The Ikea Effect — Everyone has a vested interest in loving the furniture they built themselves.
I view your definitions of a Consensus-follower and a Contrarian as two sides of the same coin. They both suffer from Hypothesis Myopia.
Thanks for commenting, Dan! I had not heard of that article before, but found it downloaded it to read later. Your list of reasons why researchers can delude themselves is spot-on.