tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post3307263481463866420..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: Existential Dread of Absurd Social Psychology StudiesThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-36399353394240456942013-04-28T17:57:28.780-07:002013-04-28T17:57:28.780-07:00Lew - Thanks for the link on the "Clenching R...Lew - Thanks for the link on the "Clenching Right Fist May Give Better Grip On Memory" study. It's caused quite a stir in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062474" rel="nofollow">comments section</a> of PLOS ONE. <br /><br />I ended up doing a post on the study myself: <a href="http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/04/want-to-remember-something-clenching.html" rel="nofollow">Want to remember something? Clenching your fist doesn't help!</a>The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-66763807409456397672013-04-28T17:24:07.390-07:002013-04-28T17:24:07.390-07:00B. Fiend - The problem with not having a clear neu...B. Fiend - The problem with not having a clear neurophysiological explanation for the findings stems from the authors' own rationale, which relies on differential activation in the dorsal ACC.<br /><br />I agree that I would like to see a stronger test of their hypothesis. One way to do this would be as a within-subject crossover design, like many typical drug studies. For this to work, the authors would have to expand their dependent measures beyond one per experiment, and come up with other surrealist film clips. Neither of these would seem that hard to do. Come up with a series of 10 moralistic & norm violating questions and 10 control questions. In separate placebo and drug sessions, watch Lynch or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Ray" rel="nofollow">Man Ray</a> or perhaps <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_Chien_Andalou" rel="nofollow">Buñuel and Dalí</a>. Answer 5 moralistic and 5 non-moralistic questions after each.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-54158672402905913652013-04-27T05:29:28.506-07:002013-04-27T05:29:28.506-07:00I'm with some of the rest of the commentators:...I'm with some of the rest of the commentators: if randomization worked (and the p-values are there precisely for this purpose), then <i>something</i> happened, and it happened fairly similarly between the two studies. The implicit criticisms suggesting that there was no actual treatment effect are pretty weak in that light. In addition, I'm also of the opinion that the second DV being technically different from, but conceptually similar to the first can be seen as adding stronger evidence to the study's assertions than if it had been identical.<br /><br />Much of your criticism seems to suggest that, if a researcher doesn't have a clear, plausible explanation for all findings at the physical neurological level of analysis, the findings should be ignored. I strongly oppose this position; we have learned a great many very useful things about humans with research that cannot, at the time, be clearly tied to well-understood neurological processes.<br /><br />Of course, the criticisms of stigmatizing prostitutes, the particular choice of events or stimuli used, and--most importantly--the theoretical model providing the conceptual framework are quite relevant. What I would really like to see would be a strong test of this theoretical framework by pitting it directly against a different framework that had different, but also plausible, predictions.B. Fiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07978256452267265491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-26862378368819835272013-04-25T08:13:29.596-07:002013-04-25T08:13:29.596-07:00Here's one I saw today that I'm sure will ...Here's one I saw today that I'm sure will blow your mind: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424185159.htm" rel="nofollow">Clenching Right Fist May Give Better Grip On Memory</a><br /><br />"My question then is why not use more than one dependent measure in the mortality / Lynch manipulations? Why not use prostitute bail (or preferably something better) AND hockey riot? Plus a third control task, e.g., "set the price to sell a used car with these x y z problems."<br /><br />I think those are great suggestions actually. lewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-34895169184168798092013-04-24T10:05:19.644-07:002013-04-24T10:05:19.644-07:00Lew - Thanks again for your comment. I'm not a...Lew - Thanks again for your comment. I'm not a social psychologist, that must be clear. We cognitive types are more inclined to do direct replications of tasks and/or manipulations. If I did ERPs in Exp. 1 and fMRI in Exp. 2, the whole point would be to use the exact same experimental parameters in both cases.<br /><br />My question then is why not use more than one dependent measure in the mortality / Lynch manipulations? Why not use prostitute bail (or preferably something better) AND hockey riot? Plus a third control task, e.g., "set the price to sell a used car with these x y z problems."<br /><br />I brought up the Stapel investigation because of the resulting controversy, not only from the fraud itself but also from questions regarding standard scientific practices in social psychology. "<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535" rel="nofollow">Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act</a>" (and this includes replications).<br /><br /><a href="http://psychfiledrawer.org/" rel="nofollow">PsychFileDrawer.Org</a> is one place that replication attempts are being documented.<br /><br />I do agree that the manuscript sections on proposed neural underpinnings and mechanisms of action are rather weak and speculative. It took me about an hour to look up and write about <a href="http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/04/does-tylenol-exert-its-analgesic.html" rel="nofollow">Tylenol's proposed mechanisms of action</a>, and that was from a paper cited by Randles et al. themselves.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-50387237830981920922013-04-24T08:15:08.685-07:002013-04-24T08:15:08.685-07:00The authors didn't come up with the prostitute...The authors didn't come up with the prostitute measure, it has often used in these types of worldview defense studies. I do agree that it's stigmatizing and wouldn't use it myself. But if the first DV is problematic, wouldn't switching to another for Study 2 be a strength of the paper, not a weakness? ;) <br /><br />You're correct, this is a conceptual replication. The manipulations are also conceptual replications of one another, with writing about death intended to evoke similar psychological processes as watching Lynch. And you're right that there's some debate about whether conceptual replications are strengths or weaknesses. Though here the DV's are actually pretty similar--they both involve punishing people. Wouldn't a brain paper that used ERP's in one study and fMRI in another be seen as stronger because of the converging evidence from multiple methods? <a href="http://www.davenussbaum.com/conceptual-replication-part-i/" rel="nofollow">Here's a longer explanation of conceptual replications.</a><br /><br />I take some offense to your Stapel comment because conceptual replications had nothing to do with Stapel's fraud. Stapel made up data. If more conventional replications were the norm, he would have made up those too. (A lot of his "findings" actually "replicated" just fine because his predictions happened to be good ones!)<br /><br />But in the end, I think where you and I can agree is that in the current paper they definitely haven't linked these effects to brain processes. I also think it's risky to wade into the physiological pool when that's usually not our training--it carries the potential for rookie mistakes.Lewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-73398863612730726402013-04-23T14:39:14.310-07:002013-04-23T14:39:14.310-07:00Thanks for the comments.
Lew - You said "Sti...Thanks for the comments.<br /><br />Lew - You said "<i>Stick to the neurological issues (e.g., they propose a brain-based mechanism but include no physiological measures).</i>" You're right, they suggested the effects are based on dACC response but included no neuroimaging.<br /><br />I expanded on a more fundamental point in my follow-up post, on whether <a href="http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/04/does-tylenol-exert-its-analgesic.html" rel="nofollow">Tylenol Exerts its Analgesic Effects via the Spinal Cord</a>?<br /><br />"<i>So if it's really true that acetaminophen exerts its pain-relieving effects through synapses in the spinal cord, then what does this say about providing relief from the angst of social exclusion, mortality salience, and existential dread? That it's based on nociceptive spinal cord neurons in laminae I, II, and V?</i>"<br /><br />As for the "randomization critique" critique shared by you and Anonymous, let's assume that the randomization worked perfectly and there were no discrepancies in baseline attitudes between the groups. I still think the Prostitute Bail Dependent Measure is stigmatizing (and a strange choice for Canadians), but that's irrelevant here. One persistent question is why switch to the Hockey Riot Dependent Measure for the second study? If the authors wanted to compare the effects of mortality salience to puzzling cinema, why not use the same measure? Or is this what is called a <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#comment-14548" rel="nofollow">conceptual replication</a> in social psychology? I would think the field might be more careful now about replication of "elegant and breathtaking" results in light of the <a href="https://www.commissielevelt.nl/" rel="nofollow">Stapel fiasco</a> (note comments by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman)<br /><br />And I do think a control measure of money allocation that is <i><b>not</b></i> based on moral norms is important here.<br /><br />Neuroskeptic - Turns out there's another model... the <a href="http://psr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/45.short" rel="nofollow">MAID</a> (model of ambivalence-induced discomfort)!The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-22393292784310824872013-04-23T11:34:04.903-07:002013-04-23T11:34:04.903-07:00Absolutely I agree with Lew.
This post doesn'...Absolutely I agree with Lew.<br /><br />This post doesn't include a single legitimate methodological critique, other than "well..I didn't like it, so therefore randomization didn't work. Just trust me on that"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-53749940223388885032013-04-23T10:51:13.800-07:002013-04-23T10:51:13.800-07:00Your comments on the dependent measures can be sum...Your comments on the dependent measures can be summed up as "maybe random assignment didn't work". I don't really care for this study either, but those criticisms are weak sauce. Stick to the neurological issues (e.g., they propose a brain-based mechanism but include no physiological measures). Lewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-61720714671502185322013-04-19T13:48:19.336-07:002013-04-19T13:48:19.336-07:00"meaning-maintenance model (MMM)"
My ru..."meaning-maintenance model (MMM)"<br /><br />My rule of thumb is that if a 'model' can be well-encapsulated in its own name, then it's a description (and a shallow one), not a model.<br /><br />I call this the Beware Trite Pseudoexplanations Model (BeTriPaMo).Neuroskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157noreply@blogger.com