view the rest of the comments
the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Is there an actual study which makes this claim, like the one that exists in psychology? Or is this your intuïtion? Not doubting you btw. As a marxist economist, I'd just like the citation.
I might have gotten the psychology study mixed up with a study on economics.
Don't worry, you weren't that far off:
About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey
Also this; I quote:
Camerer et al. found that two-thirds of the 18 studies examined yielded replicable estimates of effect size and direction. This proportion is somewhat lower than unaffiliated experts were willing to bet...
In other words, ~33% failed to be replicated. Also this pearl:
Now you see it, now you don't: emerging contrary results in economics
...with several (20+) examples of two accepted papers having wildly different conclusions despite using the same dataset for the same purpose.