In order for work to be useful, like a series of things has to happen, right? So the first thing is the work actually has to be correct. And my best guess is that in social science, at least something like 40% of studies would not replicate from top journals. Then after that, it usually needs to at least have some degree of generalizability because you don't care that it works on this exact type of person and this exact setting. But then even if you have those two things, I would add a third criteria: It can be reproducible and generalizable but doesn't matter either because the effect size is so small or because it's just about something that's
Read the full transcript here.
Why should we not optimize some things in life? Should some things (e.g., interpersonal relationships) be "off-limits" for optimization? How much time spent being unproductive is good for us? What can we learn by paying attention to our moods? Does science make progress and produce knowledge too slowly? Why is research methodology applied so inconsistently, especially in the social sciences?
Christie Aschwanden is author of Good to Go: What the Athlete in All of Us Can Learn From the Strange Science of Recovery, and co-host of Emerging Form, a podcast about the creative process. She's the former lead science writer at FiveThirtyEight and was previously a health columnist for The Washington Post. Her work has appeared in dozens of publications, including Wired, Scientific American, Slate, Smithsonian, Popular Science, New Scientist, Discover, Science, and NPR.org. She is a frequent contributor to The New York Times. She was a National Magazine Award finalist in 2011 and has received journalism fellowships from the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, the Carter Center, the Santa Fe Institute, and the Greater Good Science Center. Learn more about her at christieaschwanden.com or follow her on Instagram at @cragcrest or on Mastodon at @cragscrest.
Staff
Music
Affiliates