Hearted Youtube comments on Pete Judo (@PeteJudo1) channel.

  1. Maybe she wouldn't fake the data if there was a pledge of honesty at the begining of her paper.
    31000
  2. Having published in a handful of scientific/academic journals, I have not once been asked for actual deidentified data. The expectation is that researchers conduct themselves with honesty and integrity, but obviously that isn't universally practiced.
    4900
  3. I so vividly wish we could know the peers who reviewed this 😆😂
    4500
  4. When most people say "p-hacking", they mean something like "removing that pesky outlier to get from p<0.1 to p<0.05". This is beyond p-hacking, this is more like "torturing the data until it squeals".
    3300
  5. Imagine having a 2nd or 3rd or 4th authorship on your advisor’s paper and it gets retracted as you’re applying for jobs 😳
    2900
  6. the whole point of "peer reviewed" articles and studies is specifically to prevent this. Whatever organization agreed to publish her failed at their job imo.
    2600
  7. Wow, I'm a data analyst and not even a good one and looking at this data is hilarious and looks like something a clueless intern would do. Harvard professors should be able to fake data better than this lmao.
    2500
  8. As a PhD myself that has done lots of experimental work. The fact that any of these papers were not thoroughly destroyed upon revision is mind boggling. The first blots are so clearly copy/pasted a 1st year bachelor student would be able to see this instantly. The second blot is even worse where its so clearly photoshopped anyone should be able to see this. Stanfords initial response is beyond disgusting. If its the case that these results do not affect the conclusion there would not be a reason to manipulate the results in the first place. It begs the question who the peer reviewers were for any of the publications since they are clearly complicit.
    2100
  9. I've been trying and failing to get a legitimate paper on legitimate research with legitimate text published since 2020. The fact that some people can just skate through peer review with zero scrutiny really grinds my gears.
    2000
  10. She wrote a book that is literally called: "Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life." I mean seriously, how much more transparent do you expect her to be? She literally advises people to break the rules to advance their career. Why would she not take her own advice?
    1600
  11. When does Elisabeth Bik get a Nobel Prize?
    1600
  12. Theo Baker is such a Chad
    1500
  13. Dr Bik's name should be used as an award (the Bik award), given away yearly to Data detective. Someone should start crowdfunding asap.
    1200
  14. Yeesh, when your PhD adviser has you write up your thesis using their own data that they provide for you instead of having you develop your own hypothesis, methodology, and collected set of data, you know that's a huge red flag!
    1000
  15. There is no incentive for Harvard to conspire against her, their reputation was ruined because of the events, if they had been malicious they would have done their best to cover it up.
    924
  16. Speaking as someone that has published in Frontiers: It's a garbage publisher. You can't take it seriously, or at the very least, be very sceptical.
    912
  17. My undergrad degree is in Psychology. When I took the senior research class, the instructor (she was grad student adjunct, not a full professor), told us that if one statistical test did not bear out our hypothesis, we should try another, and another, etc., until we got the results we wanted. I was shocked. When I questioned whether this was academic dishonesty, she shrugged and said, "This is how it's done." The entire field is a sham. I went to grad school for something else entirely.
    871
  18. Pete you're laughing when you read out the emails but what he does is literally the bread and butter approach of data analyst and data scientist in businesses. Ive been fighting this stuff for 13 years and it's exhausting
    833
  19. I'm afraid I don't. Removing the suspicious data points and saying "look it's still significant" isn't that compelling. It assumes the obviously suspicious data points were the only manipulation. The fact that any part of the data set looks (very) dodgy means the whole set should be regarded with suspicion.
    832
  20. Elisabeth Bik - The researcher who researches researcher's research so that we can know when they are lying to us. So sad its come to this, but so grateful for her bravery and courage! Very inspirational
    777
  21. hay big tip. don't look at the comments.
    738
  22. This makes me feel less bad for not getting into Stanford University. 😅
    613
  23. Freeman's youngest patient was 4 years old.
    436
  24. Pause and consider this: Dr. Bix, operates in a male dominated field, with an aggressively patriarchal culture, and she calls out those who have been elevated to the highest echelons. She is not the hero we deserve, she is the hero we need.
    427
  25. I just read the UBI paper, and I thought the Western Blot images looked awfully fishy.
    411
  26. Also, Gordon Moore was cofounder of Intel, not IBM.
    389
  27. Videos like this really opened my eyes that I'm not crazy honestly... for my undergraduate thesis, I used someone's paper as a reference... i kept counting and counting but the number was just wrong.... i tried to email them, no answer too. I told my professor and he said "this has been peer reviewed, so yours the one might be wrong, check it again". Like I swear, I count it like 20+ times probably.. :") i ended up using my own calculation for my undergrad thesis but yeah, thanks for making videos like this!!
    373
  28. It would be great if there is like a 'null-journal' which only publishes negative results. It might make it more acceptable to publish those studies.
    308
  29. I've reviewed 11 papers in the last 2 years, and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry about being "top professors" and "highly paid".
    304
  30. As a chemist and into cancer studies, I found about her during my PhD. She`s awesome😊😊
    275
  31. There needs to be a purge exercise, where a ton of fraud investigators go through the entirety of published research going back at least 30/40 years. The results of it not only need to be published, but it should have its own website that not only is easily searchable for names and papers, but also a comprehensive list of work each fraudster has worked on and what other published works used their fraudulent data. It'd be the Panama Papers of Academia.
    261
  32. Meta killed Meta
    251
  33. Damn dude, unreal job with this video! I can see this series being very successful in the future. And a big yikes about the 'power posing' section in my video. I'll pin a comment on the video saying that it's been debunked, I had no idea. Are there better articles for me to reference in the future, when trying to bolster the idea of psychology being linked to physiology? Because I think it's an important idea. Thanks for the 8/10 :)
    229
  34. The blots look like a bad copy/paste job! BIG red flags...Thanks for shouting out my western blotting tutorial vid too!
    183
  35. Look Pete, i love the content, but this video was just downright lazy analysis. Im afraid were gonna need you to dive deeper if we really want to understand this phenomenon. So get in there, do your part, and start an onlyfans. I personally would love to see an excel or graph fetish focus, but its your call.
    175
  36. I simply deleted it and never looked back. I had the app for 2 years just before lockdown started in 2020. I used to come home from school and it was the first thing I did watch tiktok, same when it came with other moments of boredom. I did install again it, too see if I was missing out but I really wasn't
    169
  37. I have done a LOT of peer review (100s). Everything you say is true, but you missed the largest cause of bias. Because your own work is is judged by citations, papers that cite your work a lot tend to be favored. The competitor issue is generally less of a problem with papers as most journals allow you to exclude reviewers. I do think better peer review would occur if Reviewers were compensated.
    163
  38. One of the things we teach in Organizational Ethics is that you (managers) shouldn't put your people in situations where they are incentivized and/or tempted to cheat. If the situation is strong enough, they will behave unethically. The situation that top level academics have been in - for decades - is giving them strong, strong incentives to perform research fraudulently. The rewards for publication are far too tempting, and the checks and balances on how they produce data are far too weak. Given the situation academic leaders have put them in, we should not be surprised that these unethical behaviors are happening. And they are undoubtedly still happening. Gino is merely the highest status tip of what is probably a large iceberg. Probably.
    152
  39. Very well explained video put together..I would like to add that TikTok has reduced the attention span for many, including myself. In my personal experience, I find myself not being able to focus on the things I used to be able to focus on such as having simple conversations, reading, watching TV shows/movies and even being able to watch 5 minute YouTube videos. My mind tends to become easily distracted and it becomes difficult for me to focus on what is in front of me because of the addiction cycle TikTok has induced on me. Because of TikTok, you are able to control and decide which content you like by simply scrolling until a video sparks dopamine in you. The continuous cycle of scrolling through each TikTok video until a video sparks dopamine carries with you into everyday life events. You are constantly searching for that dopamine because it is something you can obtain quickly but since you cannot obtain it, your mind tends to wander and search for it, leading you to become distracted.
    147
  40. Idk what's worse being the consumer of tik tok or being the content creator. I say that because a user can get bored after a while but a content creator especially when going live gets so much attention and validation that the dopamine overload for them specifically is insane.
    140
  41. As I understand it, p-hacking does not involve leaving out data points that are unsupportive of the original hypothesis (this is called cherry picking), but taking a dataset and coming up with alternative hypotheses until you find one that fits the data to a certain p-value (typically 0.05). This can happen unconsciously, for instance in biology (my background), looking for correlations in gene expression and a certain phenotype can easily lead to 'finding' a gene that correlates very well, corresponding to a hypothesis that this gene is causally involved in the phenotype. In this case it is called overfitting, and is not considered fraud, just bad statistics. Knowingly trying different hypotheses until one fits a given dataset gets much closer to fraud, and can be avoided by pre-registering the hypothesis that is going to be tested. This is better science, but with a lower chance of getting a high impact publication. Next on the scale are cherry picking, and then outright data fabrication...
    116
  42. Thanks Pete! Happy to be supporting the work you're doing here. If anyone has any questions, drop them below. Otherwise, you can go to the link above to learn more.
    116
  43. Literally no one wants to talk about this topic i found 2 videos in whole YouTube Thanks bro.
    114
  44. Nice to see these toxic channels called out for their BS by someone who literally has the degree to say so! Also, the whiteboard thing is so true. You can write anything on a whiteboard and someone will believe it
    111
  45. Can you explain 3:37 statement? You say, "The worst part about this is that not only more than 50% of what you're reading is a lie, but you don't even know which 50%?" Strange statement considering you just pointed out which chapters contain studies with replication indexes below 50%.
    101
  46. First day of deleting tik tok and putting screen limit on my phone and it has been the best day I had in months. My addiction to tiktok was destroying my relationship with my bf, it was the first thing I would do in the morning and I would scroll till late in the night, no will to spend time with him, talk to him etc. Today I get so many things done, I have even read when I was bored which is something I haven't done in months! Let's hope I keep it like that :))
    89
  47. Thanks for your videos, Pete Judo. It's great to have someone prepare the story for "me". P.S. Isn't it odd that one guy alone in a video recorded at home with simple resources can feel more reliable to the viewer than large media corporations...
    81
  48. Habitica also has other features besides the to-do lists. Dailies (which are habits you do regularly) punishes you by taking away HP if you don't do them. I think its biggest strength is in joining parties, where you defeat bosses together. It increases accountability because this time, if you don't do your dailies, you also damage your partymates' HP. Also, the more you accomplish, the more damage you do to the enemy. Habitica also has a social component in parties and guilds where, as you said, you can get to interact with like-minded people. But you're totally right - I don't really care or root for my character, so the gamification isn't quite established well. It also takes a bit of a learning curve.
    70
  49. Bik's work and yours Pete are so important and the cumulative affect will kick in some day and facilitate change. In every branch of science this is happening.
    70
  50. One thing the video did not mention is that much of the published research is funded through taxes and then put behind a paywall. This means that taxpayers cannot access the research they fund.
    70