It's kind of part of why I have that wistful sense of "like can you just like . . .give me 20$? and I'll run through your setup beforehand and point out all the places where even I as an autodidact with a broad knowledge range can tell you that this study is not actually doing what you think it's doing but is in fact doing something else due to this that and the other bias/perspective/lack of control/thing you appear not to have noticed?"
Sometimes they might even decide that what they were ACTUALLY going to study is useful! It just wasn't what they THOUGHT they were studying! Like that time a bunch of neuropsych people decided to scan the brain of some famous climber because they were in awe of his ability to be totally cool and collected in very dangerous climbing situations . . . . except they decided this meant that he must naturally have some physical abnormality in his brain that meant he Didn't Experience Fear?
. . . . .except that in interviews with him he talks, explicitly, about being unable to watch (say) Game of Thrones because it's upsetting and agitating, and he's CLEARLY anxious in social-dialogue situations, so actually you're not studying a guy who has NO fear response, you're studying a guy who has fear/arousal responses that do not match up with what a LOT of people experience and that in and of itself is fascinating, interesting and valuable! It would be a good thing to study!
It's just, you're not studying a guy "without fear". That's not what's going on here.
Also hooooo boy are you right about the actual attempts to replicate in many high profile cases. (The not-actually-like-that ones don't attract as much attention.)
no subject
It's kind of part of why I have that wistful sense of "like can you just like . . .give me 20$? and I'll run through your setup beforehand and point out all the places where even I as an autodidact with a broad knowledge range can tell you that this study is not actually doing what you think it's doing but is in fact doing something else due to this that and the other bias/perspective/lack of control/thing you appear not to have noticed?"
Sometimes they might even decide that what they were ACTUALLY going to study is useful! It just wasn't what they THOUGHT they were studying! Like that time a bunch of neuropsych people decided to scan the brain of some famous climber because they were in awe of his ability to be totally cool and collected in very dangerous climbing situations . . . . except they decided this meant that he must naturally have some physical abnormality in his brain that meant he Didn't Experience Fear?
. . . . .except that in interviews with him he talks, explicitly, about being unable to watch (say) Game of Thrones because it's upsetting and agitating, and he's CLEARLY anxious in social-dialogue situations, so actually you're not studying a guy who has NO fear response, you're studying a guy who has fear/arousal responses that do not match up with what a LOT of people experience and that in and of itself is fascinating, interesting and valuable! It would be a good thing to study!
It's just, you're not studying a guy "without fear". That's not what's going on here.
Also hooooo boy are you right about the actual attempts to replicate in many high profile cases. (The not-actually-like-that ones don't attract as much attention.)