BPS Research Digest

The link is to some biohacking reddit clone...the actual article being referenced is here: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/19/new-evidence-that-the-chaotic-min… Their UI wasn't very friendly towards actually finding it. The actual "study" consisted only of 46 people with some bias during selection. Mountains of salt recommended.

No, the money in tax havens is invested back into the real economy via offshore corporations that operate and invest throughout the world. I recommend you study up on how investment finance works, and stop assuming that any characterization of the world that helps to protect rich people's profits is a lie to hoodwink the masses. That's a common reaction, and leads to erronous beliefs about the world. Wealth accumulation in the market is not zero-sum. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/08/04/we-have-an-ingrained-anti-profit-…

The credibility of the Milgram experiments and the common interpretations of them are currently in doubt. [0,1] So no, there may actually not be people who are always pro-government and never question authority. [0]https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participa… [1]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0190272519861952

Some more criticism of the experiment: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participa… Regardless of the scientific value of the experiment, the original documentary might be interesting, because of the experiment's influence apparent in textbooks and pop culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0

How about the fact that things like IAT might be junk science: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/12/05/psychologys-favourite-tool-for-me…

The British Psychological Society has a range of interesting articles, especially in their research digest: https://digest.bps.org.uk/ The Mental Elf will sometimes cover psychology: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/

Eh. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participa…

One of my previous employers had an open-plan office, and after a management change introduced mandatory hotdesking. You had to move desks every day -- management checked every morning and wrote people up if they sat at the same desk for two consecutive days. Then they introduced a mandatory uniform and a complete ban on personal items -- all the Wallace and Gromit coffee mugs, the photos of family disappeared overnight. It's the most sterile, depersonalising, demotivating work environment I've ever encountered. Incidentally, BPS covered this in another article... "Why it’s important that employers let staff personalise their workspaces" -- https://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/03/27/why-its-important-that-employers-… . It's well worth a read.

Most of the people in the Milgram experiment knew it was fake. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participa…

You'd think so, but research suggests that isn't the case. There was an interesting psychological study recently that showed the best gift (in terms of how happy the receiver is) reflects the personality of the giver rather than the recipient[1]. You might not mind, but other people do. And obviously it depends hugely on the situation, people involved, relationship, etc. [1] https://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/07/31/what-weve-been-getting-wrong-abou…

Worth mention other similar bad ideas gone big: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/16/ten-famous-psychology-findings-th…

Because the term is bullshit. I would be willing to read the phrase in a more charitable light if there was symmetry in these discussions associating negative female traits as toxic femininity. There is no symmetry. Negative feminine traits aren’t linked to gender. They are separated and abstracted from gender. The phrase toxic masculinity is used as to bludgeon masculine things and men. It also goes against studies that show Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing[1] "The findings are mixed, but given the recent cultural emphasis on toxic masculinity, one result stands out: young men who, on the “Conformity to Masculine Norms” scale, more strongly endorsed the masculine ideal of “success and winning” (they agreed with statements like “In general, I will do anything to win”), tended to score higher on psychological wellbeing six months later. “Men who adhere to this norm may experience a sense of mastery and achievement through their accomplishments,” said the researchers, led by Aylin Kaya at the University of Maryland, “which can in turn boost their eudaemonic well-being.”" Not only is the belief in a code of “true manliness” nearly universal, there are, as anthropologist Thomas Gregor puts it, “continuities of masculinity that transcend cultural differences.” While every society’s idea of what constitutes a “real man” has been molded by their unique histories, environments, and dominant religious beliefs, Gilmore…

it's a good point, I'll have to think more about it. have you read paper zero by Bem? what's your thoughts on it? I went looking for some more scholarly evidence, which is quite hard to find, but I am grateful for the opportunity to look more into the existence of studies. A 2018 review that finds cumulative support, published in American Psychologist[10], and here's an intro and write-up by the British Psychological Society [11] A 2011 review of approaches to meta-analysis of psi studies that finds support[12] A 2012 review of evidence and proposal of a quantum mechanical basis that finds support[13] My take: Scholarly evidence is hard to find, but the evidence is there, and acceptance is growing. That claim that psi is impossible and unsupported is the bolder claim that requires strong evidence to be taken seriously. Personally, I believe. And I do not understand the visceral resistance, especially from Americans, who are deeply religious people. I see no contradiciton between faith and psi. We take faith at face value, the feeling of connection to the divine, or belief in the main figures, and in stories, and saints, and miracles that speak of extraordinary powers, or people sharing how they knew their loved one had died, or speaking with deceased relatives. Do you really believe that is all cognitive bias and random fluctuations, personally I mean? Another way of saying things is, we need to be more humble. We don't understand how it can work, but we need to…

This doesn't really say anything about effective learning, it kind of just talks around it. As an elementary school teacher and a MSc Psych student, I can tell you that spaced repetition is the best way for learning facts. And it's not just my fancy - here's one of the many studies that prove it: "Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning." http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13426-004 You can google the paper and get it free online. While we're at it, learning styles are not a real thing: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/04/03/another-nail-in-the-coffin-for-le… If you need more proof, just read the papers in the references. If someone asked me what the two most important things for an average person to know about learning, it would be that 1. Ebbinghaus's "Forgetting Curve" is real, and you will forget most things that you learn within 30 days if you don't review them properly and 2. Spaced repetition, especially aided by software such as Anki, is the best way for the average person to learn and retain large amounts of information. https://apps.ankiweb.net/ Now, if one is keen, you can upgrade you learning with the use of mnemonics, both mental and visual, and drawing things helps immensely:…

That "learning styles" exist: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/02/04/the-learning-styles-myth-is-still… https://www.educationnext.org/stubborn-myth-learning-styles-state-teac… https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learni…

There are problems both on the producing side and the consuming side. Any scientist knows that research is often driven by politics, money or ego. The bigger problems are probably on the consumer side, though, and not only in under-educated social groups. Here's an interesting post I stumbled across recently: "People who trust science are less likely to fall for misinformation -- unless it sounds sciency" (https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/08/10/people-who-trust-science-are-less… This confirms my sense that we easily glom on to things that "sound right", and if you're a scientist or engineer "sciency" statements sound right to us. Do we really have the time to dive in deep enough to figure out whether it's pseudoscience?

I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go. Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-persuade-peo…

They have. Or at least, replication studies have called the publication into question. And the marshmallow study the article cites is questionable. Frankly, the whole edifice of psych research is built on top of a statistical lie that only 1 in 20 experiments will fail to replicate, when it's more like 1 in 3: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/08/27/this-is-what-happened-when-psycho…

Studies by Dweck, famous for Growth Mindset, and others point to "ego depletion" simply being a reflection of people's beliefs (My willpower is limited) as opposed to an actual resource that gets depleted. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46579000_Ego_Depletion-Is_It_… https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/29/another-blow-for-ego-depletion-th…

Getting a good night's sleep is important, in many ways. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/21/a-lack-of-sleep-causes-anxiety-bu… https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/practical-mindfulness/202007/o…

> Overall, face-to-face time decreased by around 70 per cent across the participating employees, on average, with email use increasing by between 22 per cent and 50 per cent (depending on the estimation method used). From Harvard study in 2018 comparing pre/post open-office. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/07/05/open-plan-offices-drive-down-face…

Have you ever had to pretend to be enthusiastic about project decisions you didn't agree with? Have you ever had to mask what you would like to say to prevent conflict with a problematic manager or co-worker? Have you ever had to force yourself to be polite, cheerful, and friendly to a customer who really didn't deserve the courtesy? Other examples: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/04/26/customer-service… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile_mask_syndrome https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/02/24/theres-such-a-thing-as-autism-cam…

There's also https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/06/26/higher-intelligence-and-an-analyt… (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20284218, but no comments there)

Just a heads up: Apparently the finding that reading literary fiction improves empathy is one of the many studies that have failed to replicate: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/10/19/three-labs-just-failed-to-replica…

And the Replication crisis continues... [1] Seems like the big secret is small initial sample sizes. For example, the original three Macbeth studies: 60, 27, 32. Later tried with N=153, 148, 266, 210, etc. and surprise surprise... Another example, the "Power posing will make you act bolder" study, originally with only N=42. Later tried with N=200 by researchers at the Univirsity of Zurich, and the effect disappeared. And the list goes on [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis [2] https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/16/ten-famous-psychology-findings-th…

"Grit" is basically just Big 5 Personality Traits repackaged in a way that sounds good, but doesn't predict success better than established things like trait Conscientiousness or IQ. Here's one article that summarizes some of the problems: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/09/15/lets-dial-down-the-hype-about-gri…

"It is well known that everyone has a limited supply of willpower." Not sure about that : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/07/31/end-of-ego-d… but, then again.... : https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/14/strongest-evidence-yet-for-ego-de…

There have been several studies that have failed to support that now 20-year-old hypothesis: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/06/24/new-research-challenges-the-idea-… https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpower-the-wron…