Podcast
The Jordan Harbinger Show
The book begins by discussing a research study on porn and psychic ability that was published in a mainstream psychology journal. The study claimed to show that people could sense porn in the future, but subsequent replication studies showed no such results.
The book starts with a professor from the look of it kind of trying to prove that we're all psychic when it comes to porn.
— Episode: 436: Stuart Ritchie | The Science Fictio...
Episode: 436: Stuart Ritchie | The Science Fictions Undermi...
The book begins by discussing a research study on porn and psychic ability that was published in a mainstream psychology journal. The study claimed to show that people could sense porn in the future, but subsequent replication studies showed no such results.
The book starts with a professor from the look of it kind of trying to prove that we're all psychic when it comes to porn.
It is kind of absurd thing.
This was a paper published by Darryl Bamm who's at Cornell University who is like a top-rated social psychologist and well known, well respected.
It's kind of like that right there not like wow we discovered this groundbreaking psychic pornography effect.
It's a absurd thing which looks really ridiculous and is kind of totally like it doesn't fit with physics in physics.
Episode: 436: Stuart Ritchie | The Science Fictions Undermi...
This book was discussed early on in the podcast, and the host mentioned it was written by Stuart Ritchie, a professor from Cornell University. It was described as a standard experimental setup, using standard statistical analyses and published in a mainstream psychology journal, illustrating some of the problems with the way psychology research is conducted.
The book starts with a professor from the look of it kind of trying to prove that we're all psychic when it comes to porn. Is that... Did I understand that correctly?
And yeah, it got these completely observed results. And so what a lot of people concluded from this was that there must be some kind of problem with the standard way that psychologists analyze their data and do their research which you know is part of what this book is about.
And you can kind of, and this is again what I go into in the book when I'm talking about like the bias that scientists have.
Well, this is why I suggest in the book that scientists should consider like more widely what counts as a conflict of interest, right?
I mentioned a few in the book like peanut allergy for instance, for a long time people were encouraged to keep their kids away from peanuts when they're babies because that would be helpful in terms of stopping them from developing a peanut allergy but then a really big, I think 2015 or so like a really big high quality long-term randomized controlled trial came along that actually properly tested this and it turned out it was the absolute opposite.