It's not uncommon for people to run, say five miles and if things don't look that promising, they collect another five miles. It actually is – to the surprise of some – it's also common out of branches of science and biology. So you ask one person a question and you don't quite like the answer, so you say, "I'm going to ask five people, best out of five." So if after five people you don't get it, you say "Best out of 10." And once you have 10 people, if the answer looks good, then you stop.Īnd so that kind of thing used to be quite common in psychology. Imagine you're doing a journalistic story and you want to prove a point. And Dana also talks about choices they made when they were reporting that in hindsight seem like that's not the ideal way of doing things. But studies back then – and it's funny because it's only six years ago, but a lot has changed – it was very common to have a very small sample. If you think about the time, the only thing I'd say is, it had a small sample. If in hindsight, the research was flawed by inadequate design from the get-go That doesn't mean that effect couldn't be documented in the future, it just means the existing evidence for it doesn't have the value that you wish it. And when we apply that technique to the entire body of work on power posing, we found that no, that there's no reason to believe that and you should be quite skeptical of the existing evidence. If you should trust it, if there's reason to believe as whole, it's telling you what you think it's telling you.
And then the original authors summarized the entire body of work that had looked at this and me and some co-authors, we have a tool – have a physical tool – that will also tell you if a body of work has what you call, "evidential value." The alarm's bell for me came up recently, maybe a year or so ago when a team of researchers in Switzerland failed to replicate it. I wasn't aware of it until maybe 2003/2004. On if an alarm bell went off when he first heard about "power poses" But I think it's useful to keep those two separate, so Dana Carney and Amy Cuddy have thought of this from different perspectives one much more basic science, the other much more in terms of giving advice. So maybe the scientific foundation was exaggerated or over perceived. On if Cuddy's motivational talk was grounded with scientific research I think of that talk of more a motivational speaker, more than a scientific presentation. And so, I think it's important to distinguish between the regional, narrow, a little dry paper that came out in 2010, that Dana's talking about and then the TED Talk, which is inspired by that study but also talks a lot by Amy Cuddy's personal experiences. I can't imagine they were thinking about a TED Talk at the time. On if the researchers reached these conclusions to give a TED Talk
0 kommentar(er)
