Sengoku Strider wrote:
Could be, but in the interest of context, that link is to the science outreach program of a top 50 global university (the slogan for said program being 'separating science from nonsense'), and the author has a masters in molecular biology and did lab management work in vision & motor rehabilitation for a few years before this. So he's not specifically coming out of psych, but he's not a layman either.
Entirely agreed on the reliability of the author, but my own feeling on that specific article is that it has some biases against an effect that, as the article carefully explains anyway, is very problematic.
Please do consider the possibility that people at McGill Psych may have published against the effect (and with good reason - the original study is problematic), and thus someone may have asked the author to cover the topic.
I do not doubt that a top 50 university produces solid research in psychology (etc. etc.), but all universities, small and big, do have certain outreach needs and goals, so to speak.
Though deontologically speaking an acceptable move, it is a move that tends to paint a starker contrast than needed, for people need to be attracted to and read on-line, "2-3-minute reading" articles.
Case in point, the paper cited in the article uses more nuanced tones. Also, the aforementioned paper does cite a lot of previous research
supporting the effect (how? Replicating Dunning & Kruger 1999's original, problematic methodology). For the moment, the effect has more evidence in favour than against...
...Though the evidence is problematic, and it may simply be a matter of more studies being published, before the effect can be consigned to the dustbin of history.
My 2 cents at this point is that people's awareness of the quality of their own knowledge may be under strain in certain scenarios. I wish I could simply slap a label on it ("The X-Y effect") without worrying that the label and the effect are actually bollocks, dammit!
EDIT: "Research Wahlberg" is the flippant facebook account of a McGill faculty member that churns psychology memes...featuring Mark Wahlberg. Highly suggested, especially the one on "laymansplaining".
I have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, Linguistics track, so I can only agree with you. I work as a linguist, which has
far worse methodological problems as far as I am concerned.
Another general problem is also that generalising from undergrads to humans, as psychologists often do, is also extremely problematic (W.E.I.R.D. people, etc.).
Can I quote you on on methodology, when needed? "Dumpster fire" is splendid! (I cannot open the
The Atlantic article, if you are citing from it).
Like there's even a non-trivial possibility that the primary research around "the gold standard" cognitive behavioural therapy is based on fumes. I'm kind of more inclined to trust someone in an adjacent field or with a well-supported outsider's view these days.
Me too, of course, but on any topic I want to read about, I usually read the paper(s) that a scientific divulgation article links to, and even then I try to get an idea of how many papers there are on the subject.
I do have acquaintances who are epidemiologists (e.g. the wife of my ex-boss), and they commented that they feel overwhelmed by the amount of research circulating by now.
My other 2 cents are these: when people go laypersonexplaining, I smile, nod and ignore. I finally learnt how to handle this, and I ranted in some other thread about it, in the past.
When reading something, including the double-blind peer-reviewed "critical literature review" papers, I may take notes and keep in mind that better research will supersede them, in the future. This happens often, in many fields, and now I find it to be one of the virtues of science.
Chomsky, Buckminster Fuller, Yunus and Glass would have played Battle Garegga, for sure.