John Oliver's "Scientific Studies" with discussion quesions

This hilarious video is making the rounds on the Interwebz. Kudos to John Oliver and his writing team for so succinctly and hilariously summarizing many different research problems...why replication is important but not rewarded, how research is presented to the public, how researchers over-reach about their own findings, etc. I Tweeted about this, but am making it cannon by sharing as a blog post.

Note: This video has some off-color humor (multiple references to bear fellatio) so it is best suited to college aged students.

I will use this in my Online and Honors classes as discussion prompts. Here are some of the prompts I came up with:

1) In your own words, why aren't replications published? How do you think the scientific community could correct this problem?

2) In your own words, explain just ONE of how a RESEARCHER can manipulate their own data and/or research findings. It should be one of the methods of manipulation described in the video. Also, don't just name the method of manipulation; explain it like you would explain it to a friend so that they could become aware of the issue AND know how to spot the problem.

3) Given what you have learned in this video AND your own experiences, who/what do you think is the most to blame for spreading bad science?

4) Given your response to item 3, describe one way to correct for this problem of misinterpreted data being shared inappropriately.

5) Why are replications necessary?

6) What major shortcoming of the "champagne" study was glossed over by the media? What major shortcoming of the "chocolate/pregnancy" study was glossed over? What is the difference between how study authors handle the limitations of their work versus how the media handles shortcomings in their work?

7) What were the red flags from the "hydration" study. Which do you consider to be the most damning and why?

BONUS POINT: Come up with a catchy pick-up line using the spotty Oxytocin research described in the clip.

Additionally, here is another one of my blog post (with links to other posts) related to the topic of scientific reporting.

Comments

Ways to use funny meme scales in your stats classes

Have you ever heard of the theory that there are multiple people worldwide thinking about the same novel thing at the same time? It is the multiple discovery hypothesis of invention . Like, multiple great minds around the world were working on calculus at the same time. Well, I think a bunch of super-duper psychology professors were all thinking about scale memes and pedagogy at the same time. Clearly, this is just as impressive as calculus. Who were some of these great minds? 1) Dr. Molly Metz maintains a curated list of hilarious "How you doing?" scales. 2) Dr. Esther Lindenström posted about using these scales as student check-ins. 3) I was working on a blog post about using such scales to teach the basics of variables. So, I decided to create a post about three ways to use these scales in your stats classes: 1) Teaching the basics of variables. 2) Nominal vs. ordinal scales. 3) Daily check-in with your students. 1. Teach your students the basics...

Using pulse rates to determine the scariest of scary movies

The Science of Scare project, conducted by MoneySuperMarket.com, recorded heart rates in participants watching fifty horror movies to determine the scariest of scary movies. Below is a screenshot of the original variables and data for 12 of the 50 movies provided by MoneySuperMarket.com: https://www.moneysupermarket.com/broadband/features/science-of-scare/ https://www.moneysupermarket.com/broadband/features/science-of-scare/ Here is my version of the data in Excel format . It includes the original data plus four additional columns (so you can run more analyses on the data): -Year of Release -Rotten Tomato rating -Does this movie have a sequel (yes or no)? -Is this movie a sequel (yes or no)? Here are some ways you could use this in class: 1. Correlation : Rotten Tomato rating does not correlate with the overall scare score ( r = 0.13, p = 0.36). 2. Within-subject research design : Baseline, average, and maximum heart rates are reported for each film. 3. ...

Andy Field's Statistics Hell

Andy Field is a psychologist, statistician, and author. He created a funny, Dante's Inferno-themed web site that contains everything you ever wanted to know about statistics. I know, I know, you're thinking, "Not another Dante's Inferno themed statistics web site!". But give this one a try. Property of Andy Field. I certainly can't take credit for this. Some highlights: 1) The aesthetic is priceless. For example, his intermediate statistics page begins with the introduction, "You will experience the bowel-evacuating effect of multiple regression, the bone-splintering power of ANOVA and the nose-hair pulling torment of factor analysis. Can you cope: I think not, mortal filth. Be warned, your brain will be placed in a jar of cerebral fluid and I will toy with it at my leisure." 2) It is all free. Including worksheets, data, etc. How amazing and generous. And, if you are feeling generous and feel the need to compensate him for the website, ...

Search This Blog