Harvard Fake Data Scandal - HUGE NEW DEVELOPMENT
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Go to www.piavpn.com/PeteJudo to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!
My Website: petejudo.com
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petejudoofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
Good tools I actually use:
Shortform: www.Shortform.com/pete
Ground News: ground.news/Pete
Go to www.piavpn.com/PeteJudo to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!
you need to investigate all the fake papers research by bigpharma on their drugs...400k patients die every year
no mention of the massive data fraud in the MRNA vaccines roll out and the huge excess deaths?
You are advocating people to engage in a crime. Punishable by jail. You cannot access shows outside of the region you licensed for. YOU ARE A DISGUSTING HUMAN BEING. You would do a copyright strike in 5 seconds if someone used your content illegally.
I'm going to advocate a video be made about YOU. And the crimes you advocate be committed.
A VPN is not illegal. Accessing content you DID NOT LICENSE for IS. You can promote a VPN without suggesting that people engage in illegal activity. SHAME ON YOU.
Re PIA and Netflix : Lies. It doesn't work reliably, if at all.
Wonder if they made her sign her testimony at the top.
Oh my goodness! That was priceless!😂🤣
🤣🤣🤣
Best comment ever!
made me chuckle
DAMN
I asked myself the exact same question
I'm a lawyer. Saying "we're excited to present her defense in court" means they don't have shit. Because if there were really something to it, they would already put it out there.
Wait... Gino is not the defendant, she would be the plaintiff in the defamation case. Why would the plantiff be excited to present a defense?
@kayakMike1000 I didn't listen to the attorney's quote again, he was referring to her defense of Harvard's allegations. She's functionally the defendant on those issues
speaking of lying “i’m a lawyer” 😂
@@kayakMike1000 At the 20min mark this is made pretty clear, its Gino´s team talking about defending her against Harvard's accusation of data fraud.
@@meesalikeu haha how can I prove it to you
"One of the best things about going to Harvard is that, for the rest of your life, you are neither intimidated nor impressed by people who went to Harvard." - Thomas Sowell
I'm doubting her integrity by the way she responded, blaming sexism and 'sabotage' by a female co-author. I wonder if the research money made them cut corners or present this instead of redoing the entire study, considering they found discrepancies early on?
Love for Sowell.
Isnt the usual practice, to test the correctness of a claim to replicate it and see if the results confirm it. Instead of first co demning the author is dishonest.
@@robertenn6818 Supposed to be. According to the video, she was _upset_ that the other team found discrepancies and she apparently ignored them. 🤷♂
Or work there, then you can walk away anonymously
Isn't Sowell marvelous? He always has exactly the right observations. Absolutely a unique and precious mind.
If they started screening out the professors with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not only would there hardly be any professors left, but all of the drama would go away and everyone could get a real education again.
The problem with that argument is that most classes aren't taught by professors any more. They are taught by grad students, post docs, and sundry other academic migrants.
I find that generally with math and STEM professors this happens a lot less often. there is a good population of them that are just genuinely excited about their field and while they find teaching students a bit of a pain, understandably. they're willing to do it because they want to prop up their field more.
Except it is not always easy to detect and others figure it out. This test won't help
If you screen historical figures with that, we'd still be living in caves.
'Again'?
Lol she's crying sexism, then turns around and blames another woman... yup.
Shocking!
@@nickjohnson410 Honestly I wouldn't say anything, you can blame anyone you want if you have proof that harm was done to you. But since she started her defense with "Blatant sexism..." and then progresses to blaming another woman, that's just funny yo...
you shouldn't ask a woman her age and where she got the data for her papers
@@weeb3277 That might have been true back in the day, and I know you're half joking. But if the drama in the Minecraft community has thought me anything in the past few weeks it's that not only do you absolutely have to ask a woman her age, but you also have to have an attorney and notary ob call at all times so that you're able to create and sign a contract in triplicate if you don't want to be called a Sexual Assaultist or worse...
Look at Professor Gay, when caught she blamed racism yet she personally tried to destroy the career of a fellow Black academic because his factual findings did not align with her political ideology, she also plagiarized her work from several other Black scholars.
So the female co-author can now sue Gino $25 million for defamation and being sexist
Love that idea. Hope Nina Mazar reads this. :)
haha uh-oh
Black people can't be racist, women can't be sexist, it's basic math.
It's not sexist just bc she's a woman. The allegations against her weren't tied to her gender in any way.
This is just evoking female privilege. When something doesn’t go their way, some are stoic, some cry and some cry sexist.
People somehow have the impression Harvard will always be a highly prestigious university, when we can see its reputation crumble in real time.
go woke = you're broke(n).
Harvard… they actually Wrote The BOOKS on how to manipulate everything!!! From Law to Phycology -science, business, …. A 1,300 page report 😂😂😂.. suing Harvard 😂😂.. the Fact that 700+ professors signed a letter saying Not to fire the president Gay after her congressional testimony, pretty much sums it all up… beautiful buildings filled with snakes 🐍
To be fair, all the Ivy League schools are like this. That super-high tuition is just a ticket to the crook club.
Yes, all illusion and rot ~~
@@RawOlympia Not all illusion. The Asian students are usually quite brilliant, but they stay away from the Left fascists and go back to their home country after receiving their degree.
@@DrCruel Precisely. Imagine a John Kerry, Bush 2, Biden, Clinton (LOL, the Rhodes Scholar), Eddie Munster (err Paul Ryan) etc. trying to an engineering course in a German or Japanese university. ;-)
one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in human history
My father was a Harvard professor of psychology. Let me tell you, as a person who grew up meeting many eminent psychologists, this is a field which is a magnet for cheats, fakes and nuts. Not to mention the egotistical maniacs. The body of knowledge consists mainly of people's opinions. We call that a 'soft' science. To my father's credit he tried to elevate the field by applying statistical analysis. But compared to chemist they know almost nothing. That's why they get away with murder. She was just dumb enough to fake data. Many of them just make naked assertions. They are never caught.
oh please drink a glass of water 😂
Absolutely! Really it seems the *majority* of this type of psych "science" is bogus. It fits a recognizable pattern. Take any study that demonstrates a surprising but interesting conclusion that might get cited/featured by media, especially one that fits the pattern of 'wow, so interesting, but it fits my world view & verifies something that has always bugged me'. Most of these are junk. So easy to tweak the results. They only get caught when they are the most egregious in stretching the truth or the most incompetent at it.
“Social science” is an oxymoron. Dressing up subjective observations with the mathematical and statistical trappings of hard science doesn’t make it science. It’s like using a caliper to measure a marshmallow.
Not all psychology is soft. Stuff about the brain (perception, cognition) is much better than social psychology.
@@lobstermash And it isn’t “social science”
Harvard's "Veritas" has become rather ironic.
More like fakitas now
@@proletar1660still more trustworthy than project veritas
@@proletar1660😐
As a Crimson has said, "For the remainder of my life I will wonder how Whitaker Chambers
go into my house to use my typewriter".
But everything she says is "virtually" true!
my NPD ex would often claim, "I was educated by the smartest professors in the world at Harvard and you have no idea what you are talking about!" This concept that she leaned into so often makes a lot more sense now ! LOL
"She claims their accusations are biased, sexist and false" - tell me you are guilty without telling me that you are guilty.
So what are innocent people supposed to say?
@@lellyparker Their accusations are false. Period.
It's strategic to claim the maximum amount even if there not much basis for it. It improves your chance of success.
Nice
@@lellyparker Not commit the same offense you are suing for. Claims of sexism are essentially impossible to prove because motive is hidden inside the brain. So any accusation of sexism amounts to nothing more than its own defamation.
I'm pretty old.
Old enough that I remember that when I was young, being caught in a lie meant the end of a scientific, academic, journalistic, or even political career. It was such a hard principle, that I remember
Walter Cronkite freaking out on the air when he realized that he had just reported something that was passed on to him that had not been verified and might not be true. He looked terrified.
Today, it's no big deal.
she's being fired...
Today, it's a career enhancer. Until/unless the s hits the fan.
If you are whyte man, certainly is. For women? You might get slapped down, but You will quickly appear on someone else's payroll.
I don't get how your comment applies to the subject of this story. She is no longer employed by Harvard. Unless she can produce evidence in a court of law that her collaborator sabotaged her work her career is over. So to your point, some things never change.
@@omidalavi2333 And then she'll sue - regardless of whether she wins or not she'll become a celebrity and make tens of millions giving speeches about her BS theories and sexism in society. As they said; it's consequence free.
Personally, I don't care if it was one of her co-authors or not. To publish a scientific paper, you have to sign your name saying you agree to all the claims and that you read it over. Clearly, she didn't do her duty reading it over.
Clearly, *the five authors* didn't do *their* duty reading it over.
Fixed it for you. By your logic, why single out Prof. Gino?
@@ps.2 There is always the "corresponding author", the one who is responsible for the paper as a whole. Guess she was the one here. But true, all of this bunch look shady...
@@ps.2more often than not there is a lead/main author.
She should have checked the data.
Why she should do? The results were in her favor.
I really don't want to know how much scam we are now facing in science? Fact is, only people who publish astonishing results will be promoted. The whole academic field is infested.
"The only reason they're accusing me of this is SEXISM"
**Proceeds to throw female colleague under the bus**
for the 25m USD that she intends to get, people here and there make few compromises🤣🤣🤣🤣
...ignoring the fact two of the four people in the research were men, and Gino states she felt she was in the middle of them *the two male researchers* in disputes about the data, and didn't accuse them of sexism and altering the data, but accused her female colleague, but calls the three men that brought this to light as sexist.
@@RonKris That's not really the point because she's a total fraud and crying sexism is just a pathetic excuse to shift the blame but *even so* she clearly tried to divert more of the criticism onto her female colleague than anyone else.
Did she not proof read her own paper before she published it?
The mistakes are so obvious.
Imagine your career being ruined, not simply by Academic dishonesty, but by an utter lack of attention to detail in a field that attention to detail is Paramount?
Even if the numbers weren't fabricated, shame on her. She got an *F* on that one and it ruined her career. Better to not publish anything.
Good god, Harvard. You can't redact just the names and leave all the obvious other identifiers like jobs. In medical research, we'd first be laughed at and then face charges for that.
It wasn't redacted, they were playing hangman. Left in the right number of spaces and all 😅
@@andyk2181 Lol!
Now THAT's an ironic statement. There is no field afloat on so many bogus conclusions and fake data as the medical research field. Did you sleep through the last 4 years?
Didn't the US DoJ do something like that with Trump, calling him "Individual 1"?
Totally agree: this was not a serious attempt at privacy. HBS must have internal procedures for this level of breach of privacy - I hope there is (at minimum) internal follow up. Transparency is vital, but that doesn’t mean no other rules apply.
"A 1,300 pages report". By Harvard on this blatant fraud case.
There's a subject for some serious behavioral studies right there!
View one mountain of garbage from the top of another.
@@winstongludovatz111If we stack enough garbage mountains on top of each other maybe we can reach for the stars!? Though obviously we'd just add trash they produce to our piles. What else could garbage-hoarders do with stars?
Not at all. If you are going to accuse your star celebrity professor of fraud you better show absolutely every shred of evidence you’ve got and make sure there is no innocent explanation. If they had accused her and she could credibly claim innocence they would be toast.
The one thing I don't get is how it took five top level academics to do this research, when the actual data collection is on the level of an elementary school science fair.
Because one has to be highly uneducated to succeed with it! They comfortably belong to the same "class" and are protecting each others' interests. They are not truly independent curious individuals like a true researcher such as Galileo Galilei once was while doing real research. They are ritual bureaucrats in an institution with a salary and kids at home. It's behavioral. @@Benjamin1986980
If a research assistant made a mistake, and the research staff did not vet through the data before submitting it, whose fault is it?
This childish behavior of cheating your way and playing the victim when you get caught needs to have real consequences or it will continue to grow.
Harvard itself needs to suffer real consequences for allowing such nonsense while raking in donations and extraordinary tuitions
“Their accusations are sexist! I didn’t lie. It was my female co-author!”
What the fuck…?
She signed it as author so who cares? Defame someone else in your own defamation case why don't you, after writing your name at the top 🎉
Obviously some people don't care where they put their name 😂
She just thinks she's above everyone else and should never be questioned.
Maybe someone is a lesbian here?
As a former research scientist in an adjacent field, this YT game me flashbacks. I have personally seen/read papers were I knew for sure data was tampered with. However as being a lowly PhD student at the time, I was advised to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to have a career in my field.
What field and what type of manipulation?
I read recently that p value manipulation is pretty common
There is something called anonymous whistleblowing! You should look it up.
@@Maxine.Demian p-hacking is one of the most "innocent" types of manipulation. Data fraud (fake data) is much much worse.
sure thats not vague
Are you in a position to come out with it now? Exposing this can be a real contribution to science.
Maybe you can anonymously bring this to Data Colada?
This is a frivolous lawsuit. She should be forced to pay everyone’s attorney’s fees, fired, and deported.
Major red flag: calling for sexism when there was no hint of it - a typical trait of a dark triad personality.
Here is another defense she can try: "Hey, come on, at Harvard not just me but everyone is a charlatan!"
Ahhh the ole' "just following orders" defense.
I'm actually impressed that Harvard followed through with a real investigation, not just a cover-up!
The data guys must’ve presented them with an airtight case. Since it was damning, and was going to go public one way or another, a “thorough investigation” was the only way to preserve themselves.
she isn't the double-protected class like the president of color a few months ago
She's the wrong colour for a coverup.
Gino is whiite enough to be fired. Heterose xual whiite women rank really low on the totem pole of Perma-Victims of whiite supre macist intersec tional syste mic fascisty racism-osity.
@@offshoretomorrow3346. Really? There is a right colour? What colour is she? Well, I guess the Gender card is not playable right now, so the Race card must come out.
Of course, one might conclude you believe that a cover-up was the right course of action in the first place.
At this rate, by 2040 Harvard will be known as
"a mediocre Junior College".
"Behavior" and "Science" don't belong together.
Ah yes, back in the day when "Harvard" and "research" equaled "honesty"...now it means "lie through your teeth" and "blame everyone else"
Not just Harvard. I would say it is a common practice today. Publish or perish, fosters bad incentives.
Agree. Nobody wants to fund basic fuck around and be honest what you found -science. Only huge spectacles and people who have been spectacular. Then everyone acts surprised when the effects of conflicts of interest arise...
when they kept out too many Asians because they happen to have a positive culture of academic achievement.
@@bryck7853 this is only china i suppose, but most of them are here going to grad school because their higher education system is so corrupt and shitty. it's the same with india and their issue with giving people straight up fake degrees
There’s a good chance it’s significantly better now if you think about it
Maybe Gina should have had her colleages fill out an honesty pledge before joining the team, rather than after.
Brilliant!
Lol, best comment here.
And then promptly put it in a real shredder.
I had initially planned to retire at 62, work part-time, and save money, but the impact of high prices on various goods and services has significantly disrupted my retirement plan. I'm worried about whether those who experienced the 2008 financial crisis had it easier than I currently am. The volatility of the stock market is a concern as my income has decreased, and I fear that I won't be able to contribute as much as before, potentially jeopardizing my retirement savings.
The increasing prices have impacted my plan to retire at 62, work part-time, and save for the future. I'm concerned about whether those who navigated the 2008 financial crisis had an easier time than I am currently experiencing. The combination of stock market volatility and a decrease in income is causing anxiety about whether I'll have sufficient funds for retirement.
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than two years, and I've made over $800,000.
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach to you using their service?
Leticia Zavala Perkins, a highly respected figure in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses extensive experience and serves as a valuable resource for individuals seeking guidance in navigating the financial market.
Thank you for the lead. I searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
I’m currently working on a PhD in medicine. I worked with many collaborators in the past. I would never have or allow access in primary data. Even if you’d co author, I’d copy data into a third location and be very very VERY transparent how to move forward. If there’s any disagreement, I’d rather not publish at all. Thank you for sharing this story, a cautionary tale indeed.
It must be emotional to have your personal heroes suspected/revealed as frauds. I wish you the best and thank you for your integrity Pete.
Only if you are a softie.
My personal heroes are Einstein, Fermi, Poincaré, Cauchy. Not these clowns. Choose better your heroes, they say something also about you.
@@MassimoAngotziFor sure. Calling them "clowns" is going light on them, mate. They are entitled poseurs.
@@MassimoAngotziwho asked you? You think you are important enough to showcase us your opinion? What a joke you are
@@MassimoAngotzi Nikola Tesla and Mohandas Gandhi were probably my two biggest heroes growing up.
A pox on all their houses. A silly experiment. A silly field of study. Silly conclusion. Not replicated. No peer review. Everybody associated with this should find something useful to do.
They have...
I agree George that from our exterior viewpoint that this subject seems awfully trivial but clearly to behavioural scientists and to the HBS it is important. And by important I mean able to generate Big Money. Those conferences shown in this video were clearly not cheapies. This is about business not science anymore.
Reminds me of Richard Feynman writing about how one guy showed that almost all rat in maze experiments were bogus, as he showed that rats could remember what maze floor sections sounded like. When the maze was laid on sand, rats couldn't navigate anymore. Hundreds if not thousands of experiments invalidated, and there was just sheepish silence from the researchers. Super shoddy behavior. Perhaps behavioral scientists should study scientific behavior. @@MarkMcCluney
@@georgegonzalez2476 Wow that's hilarious if true.
TY for the update. Keep posting.
"...couldn't get the study to replicate." Well, yeah, because the study design has obvious flaws. Who wouldn't be suspicious of this thing? "Solve puzzles for money! But we want you to report your success total... but not show us! Just tell us... and we have provided a shredder so we have to take your word for it! Be honest now!" In that context, I would be expecting either a well hidden camera, some sort of trick where a copy is being made my marks on the desk, or some pencil motion tracer is working... I mean... the setup tells you they're testing your honesty! It's so contrived and artificial, who would act normally?... of course one criticism of the work was they needed to conduct complementary studies of the signature location effect in a natural environment. Of course. : /
On a very basic level, I think putting your name to a document means you must accept the consequences of its publication, both good and bad.
She's lying through her teeth and I was never very impressed with Dan Aierly's intellect either.
A lot of the "co-authors" claim to have never seen it, which is bizarre. Apparently padding extra authors helps claim credit if it goes well and deny involvement if it goes poorly. Reflects poorly on the academic process overall when everybody immediately claims they performed zero oversight.
Intellect or morals
They never written the papers themselves but a "Ghost Author" did? Yes London Real I remember them when they had David Icke there for an interview.
@@spayced To be fair it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for most authors on a paper to never have seen data or how experiments actually went. Many authors are there simply because they were in advisory roles or had minor contributions to possibly all sorts of subtasks. Just because you end up in the author list doesn't mean you had oversight or knowledge of, well, anything, really.
From the paper
If any of the authors only performed minor work and did not involve themselves in the data, then they had their chance to disclose that in the above.
Thank you for the summary in the beginning. Very helpful! 🙏
Really depressing to me are the HUGE petcentages of cheating among study participants: 79% among those asked for an affirmation at form bottom, but still 37% among those asked for an affirmation at form top! (And 64% cheaters in control group with no affirmation to sign.) This is really disgusting. Where have morals gone? Something is very wrong. -
And if those liars later are working as lawyers, engineers, inspectors, technicians, doctors, bankers, researchers, etc., there are so many dangers.
This reminds me so much of a study I had to do in my masters together with other students. The results of our survey were non-conclusive to the extent that because of badly participants filling out the survey incompletely or wrong, our sample sizes became too small and they didn't even prove any hypothesis.
We were a group of 5 people and we split the paper up by steps. One person wrote the theory part, another the methods part, I wrote the data assembly and the data processing and yet another person the evaluation of the data and the conclusion.
The person writing the theory part insisted that we fake our data to get the results we need. The person doing the methodological part insisted that we portray the correct results but omit that our sample sizes were too small. So that we pretend the study is conclusive and valid. The person writing the conclusion and evaluation started writing their part before I even finished compiling the data. As it was a survey taken before and after an intervention as well as a third survey at the end, raw data had 3x the entries than there were participants. They used that 3x data to evaluate the study, wish was crazy.
It ended up with me insisting that I will not lie and that i will do the data processing correctly, which will show that we have too little entries and that even if using statistics for small sample sizes, none of our hypothesis were valid. Secondly I went to the professor and told him that I wanted his insight into the data collected as it was too bad to produce valid results. So that the others couldn't fudge the data anymore as I provided him everything. Lastly I asked him that the paper to be graded separately by the parts we contributed, not as an overall group grade. Then I told the others that they can write whatever they want in their parts, I will not even read it as I don't want any part in it.
The end result was that the person who did the evaluation from using descriptive statistics on the wrong (3x) data set got a grade not much worse than mine. I went and asked the professor as to why my grade was so low and if I did errors in my statistical approach. He explained that in the contrary, I was more diligent than I had needed and that I put extreme efforts into finding a way to process the data in a valid way despite the collected data itself being questionable. I was transparent and did the best I could with the data we had and even produced some interesting insights despite the quality of the data being so bad.
However he could not grade me very highly because my presentation was hard to read. Think of him wanting "p=.58" and me writing ".58 (p)". I understand that there are conventions on how to write things, but it is telling that I could present perfectly fine and correct data in a still readable way and get graded the same as someone who falsifies data, evaluates the wrong data and even in doing so never does more than descriptive statistics on a data set that needed multivariate analysis to even answer the research question. But their presentation was flawless.
This sends the wrong signals to students if you can get the same or even better grades by writing total bullshit but making it sound good as someone actually putting in effort to get things correctly but failing to write it down in the conventional way.
One thing I learned in school was that in the fuzzy fields that required a lot of writing (lit, history, any of the social "sciences") that the best grades came from the best BS. Knowing the topic and correct answers counted for far less that telling the professor what they wanted to hear in the most overblown way possible got higher grades.
The way of universities is that nearly everyone is some sort of, to borrow from Alice Cooper, stumbling demented child-king.
This brings back memories of my first attempt at writing my Masters thesis. I received my first corrected chapter back from my thesis supervisor and it was just a mess of red ink with "WTF" and question marks and arrows and scratched out sentences. It was pretty brutal.
However, I did learn one thing. You simply can't use words like "maybe", "possibly", and other non-committal terms. It also becomes a confusing mess if you try to be your own Devil's Advocate in the same document.
You MUST select what you think is the most likely conclusion and argue it as well as you can, even if you have your doubts.
That professor was 100% correct.
On the contraty, it sends the right signals. Why be honest when you can be rich?
Exactly. Academics cares more about Form (conformity) than substance (productivity/valid results). I had a leadership program. Wrote lots of papers, APA writing style. Had the same professor for most classes; getting As. Had 1 class with Dean of that program and got a B or C on the term paper saying I butchered APA citations. Sounds like he had a problem with his professor not teaching me correctly (if so) cause I did the citations the same way on all my papers. And obviously anyone in that field could easily track where my quotes and concepts were cited from (they were all cited). Never any criticism of the content or context of my ideas/analysis, just the “form” was wrong. Give me a F’n break! In my final class of the BS program. Dean didn’t give 2 sh*ts if I learned anything in the class and program only as long as APA paper style was strictly conformed to. (Citations made, just not in the exact list/format order he wanted). Dumb! Lost respect for their program after that.
I don’t care if its in crayons on a napkin as long as I can distinguish the author’s ideas from someone else’s and give credit to others for their content.
let just be blunt, Harvard isn't better at teaching students or is a better school. It is has more prestige, but that's not directly related to learning. Harvard is a gate keeper of power and wealth. Go there if you want to get stinking rich and rub shoulders with rich kids. if you want to learn, go to a state school that focuses on teaching and not prestige or research.
Agreed!
In top universities, the focus leans more towards research than teaching. However, excellent research requires well-prepared students, who either benefit from engaging lectures or undertake intensive self-study. My former university maintains high student standards during the bachelor's program by failing 45% and scheduling exams at the end of the summer break, not the beginning.
Are you saying this as someone who went to an Ivy League school? Or are you just making assumptions?
To an extent, yes. But I have experience with a well renowned State University that curved the shit out of its grades in Calc I. It depends on the professor/grad vs undergrad and the TA’s. My BS is from a state school and my MBA is from a private school. I had good and bad professors in both but I had much better professors at a grad school level than undergrad. I wouldn’t do well with the competitive atmosphere at the undergraduate level at a Harvard/MIT/Stanford. Grad school different experience.
State schools have the same problem because they want to be in elite research institutions.
What did we learn from this?
Sometimes when you protest your innocence, you just make this much, much worse.
Thank you for presenting this info in a very clear and exciting who done it manner. I look forward to viewing some of your other videos. I also appreciate that you have provided some info abt yourself.
Tbh, I have no faith in the integrity of any of them.
Good call
How do I get one of these enemies who sabotages my career by helping me become one of the most famous people in my field, allows me to make a couple million in public speaking fees & book deals, and lets it go on for a decade before getting to the actual negative part of their plan?
"Good, twice the pride double the fall."
With enemies like these, who needs friends?
As I looked at the Harvard coat of arms, I thought it would be more appropriate to have it read VE RI DEI
rather than VE RI TAS
Who’s with me?
What a great channel you have. I didn’t know anything about this case and you spoke clearly about it. I’m hooked!
As someone who worked as a Direct of Data Analytics for like 10 years now... This is called Normal. Cheat then Lie. It works every time.
Not this time buster!
@Buttercupz2001 what do you mean by "normal"? Does that mean you see cheating everywhere around you?
@@ThePowerMoves it's mean - first you have an idea, and second - you choose (or make up) data which support your idea
Please tell us more about your experience in this!! Thanks in advance.
Great to see fraud busted.
Happens in Speedrunning too. Someone gets caught, and at first they claim "I have no idea why my run looks suspicious".
Then they claim they're the victim of a witch hunt and that everyone is just jealous of them.
Then they admit that they cheated only this one run and that it's really not a big deal.
Then they admit that they cheated all their runs for years, but only because they were feeling depressed.
And then they get banned.
Dan Ariely was accused of fraud on the very same topic. Now he's a co-author on this paper with strong evidence of fraud. His friend is taking the hit and blames Dan's assistant. Why aren't we talking about the elephant in the room?
Are you suggesting he sabotaged multiple papers by Gino? If it were just this one, you'd be looking at multiple possible perpetrators; but the common link here is Gino. Occam's razor days she did it and that Ariely also commits fraud. There is evidence it's pretty common outside this group as well, so that's utterly plausible.
@@bobbyfeet2240 Also who better to spot cheaters than other cheaters? In speedrunning it's common for someone who cheated to end up calling out another cheater for using the same methods as them (and then getting found out by someone else applying the methods to detect cheating to the cheater calling his brethren out).
No honor among thieves, I think the saying goes, right?
@@bobbyfeet2240 We're suggesting he had a Motive to manipulate the data in a study that was expressly conducted as an attempt to replicate his previous, manipulated (at this time this was not public knowledge) study.
These people must have been life-long liars and cheaters to be so interested in this topic.
@@bobbyfeet2240 , there's a fair chance the data originally given to Gino was bad in the first place, and the Ariely have forged data for years. If so, Gino blaming Nina Mazar is a case of poor judgement of character rather than actual fraud. Then again, it is entirely possible Gino and Ariely were in this together, and that the cooking of data is behind the bad relationship with Bazerman's.
Good thing they caught this. I'm sure it has never happened before and will never happen again. 😂
Thanks for the reporting Pete!
These types of studies already seem total nonsense to me anyway. Like, you have a bunch of people in a room who have signed up for a study and know they are being studied. That already basically makes the study questionable. On top of that you're only doing it on like 100 people? Why are papers like this even considered valid science in the first place?
That's my thought too. The study looks really easy to do and replicate, the only complex bit being the faux shredder. If you suspect your data isn't good, you could really easily run the experiment again as long as you have your shredder. As a field scientist (biology), I can't fathom why there isn't thousands of data points, not a 100.
@@p.bckman2997 Currently the way psychology is commonly done having 1000 data points probably wouldn't be much more informative than 100 because they would come from undergraduates at some university in north America who know they were participating in psychology experiment. To get more generalizable data would be hard, expensive and still not very useful because social attitudes about pledges on forms could change in unpredicted ways. Biology is hard because it's complicated, psychology is more complicated and requires informed consent.
It can work if the apparent topic being studied is unrelated to the actual study. People will skew the apparent results while the actual results could still be meaningful.
@@thomasmaughan4798 in theory, yes. In practice, the people who sign up for these studies, especially when they are that small, are other psychology students in the researcher's dept. So, they are already wiser about the study techniques
@@themartdog "So, they are already wiser about the study techniques"
And thus, nearly meaningless results 🙂
Had her as a lecturer before - clear Narcissist, hence no surprise lies exist and glad they're now revealed.
It seems to be a golden age for malignant narcissists. The damage these parasites are causing to institutions and society as a whole is incalculable.
Why are they excited to present information in court as part of her DEFENSE when she is the PLAINTIFF?
If a reputation is built on fraud, then that is their reputation when they're caught.
So the defense theory is :
1) someone else went to extreme lengths to insert incriminating manipulated data into four different paper, probably committing several crimes in the process
2) this person, by the way, is a co-author on a study into which she inserted fake data, therefore she deliberately made herself EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA FRAUD (because all authors are responsible for the integrity of the data and are all guilty of misconduct if there is fraud, regardless of which author actually committed the fraud itself)
3) this incriminating data, which of course strongly supported the central hypothesis of each paper, was not noticed by any of the other authors
4) having carried out this ingenious plot to frame both Gino and herself for fraud, she waited twelve years to spring the trap, allowing Gino to remain at the pinnacle of academia and make a fortune in the meantime
Orrrrrrrr... Gino committed the data fraud herself to promote her career. Hmmm this is a real toss-up 😂
3.5) None of the peer reviewers read any of the data.
... and all of this in a ~100 record dataset, not terabytes of data.
@@KyriosHeptagrammaton That's actually scarily common from what I hear.
@@andyk2181 I mean, you're talking about unpaid post-grads who would rather be doing their own research, but because they can't really get into publications without participating in peer review, they have to do it.
So they have a conflict of interests as far as doing peer review properly is concerned.
@@OzixiThrill that sounds like a problem.
I want to know more about the resume of the consultant who gets paid to spend 11 months and 1300 pages investigating this 🤔
god i had the same thought, like whose job was this to make?? i could never but if that's the career they wanted they must be thriving now lol
@@tamoyed Not that any invoice bothers Harvard, but that has to be at least a $5 million “consulting” bill.
Dear diary, today I encountered a wild Tay Zonday in the comments section of a video discussing data integrity scandals at Harvard. I'm going to go listen to chocolate rain.
They are probably mostly lawyers. Considering they probably knew an accusation like this would lead to, say, a $25 million lawsuit, they had to be thorough
Is it already the time when you can post normal comments without people freaking out?
Thanks so much for staying on top of this. We know the mainstream media won’t
"Anyone on the same wifi as you can access your browsing data, etc", please stop spreading false information about VPNs. I understand you need the money from the VPN sponsor and there's a way to advertise its legitimate use cases without spreading false information about computer security.
What's wrong with changing your known unsecure IP address , to an IP address that is unknown and also insecure? If it makes you sleep better. Sounds like someone's found a good business idea there. Getting paid by an interested third party as well as by his content providing customers.
@@bjorntorlarssonso medical quacks are ok too I guess? Whatever helps people sleep better?
If going to sleep is that important to you, why not? You have a difficult time understanding what you read, don't you?@@MrAdamo
Yeah it's not misinformation brother. If you're on the same IP as me I can certainly intercept the packets between your device and the router...
Most internet packets are encrypted these days. Just make sure you're visiting https sites. Most of them are. So, no, the typical snoop cannot view your browsing history.
Gino claiming ignorance and blaming a co-author is analogous to being angry because you checked "yes" to the terms of agreement without reading them. Every reputable journal ever requires a sign-off from ALL authors when publishing a manuscript. If she didn't check the data, that's on her.
Absolutely fascinating as usual!
Harvard: VE RI DEI
Who thinks this is a more accurate motto?
They sign articles, then you ask about their data and they don't know what to reply. A house of cards.
My friend in biology, a very strong scientist in cancer research with a patent in hematology testing could not replicate six times the results, recently published in the toney science journal… when an email inquiry was made to the author directly, the reply was “you have your data, we have have ours”.
When I was a medical student, there was a piece of graffiti over the toilet paper dispenser, which said “psychology degrees, please, help yourself“. Seems that was correct and prescient.
😎👍🙏🏼
Every university must have that saying in a stall.
Sometimes it's European Studies instead, though more hilariously the course in Public Administration was shown by at least one year's graduate survey data for the university I went to, to create the only graduate class with a lower average income following 4 years of study, than the average income of those who just finish high school and go straight to work (Or unemployment). At least there is no crippling student debt associated with getting through college here, so people can study things that might enrich their lives rather than considering earning potential first.
Well done video. It was a great explanation of the facts, and you had terrific insight.
This whole situation should be a study titled, "how petty differences and poor communication become $25 million dollars."
Does it all even matter? Her name is on a paper that is obviously scientifically worthless, if not an outright scam and even if she had nothing to do with the manipulation (which is already very unlikely), she still must have seen that it's not a paper that should be released. So she either didn't care at all about the content of the paper or she knew and signed off on it because she knew it would make for great headlines. Either way there is a massive misconduct on her part.
The same can be said of her coauthors.
None of them should be teaching.
Yes it matters. Obviously
@@stevenverrall4527 , in all fairness, Max Bazerman _did_ make some noise about it, if only internally. I he felt the data was suspect, he should have withdrawn from the study.
This is inconsistent. If she should have noticed the errors then they were too obvious. If she tampered with the data, why would she make such glaringly obvious mistakes? None of this adds up. The changes to the data are so bad it makes me doubt she changed it simply because I think she would have done a much better job. But who knows?
It's little SQL or Excel work, they can remove these anomalies but these Harvard professors don't have good experience with cheating or with Excel
They'd have just manufactured the records either way. Or maybe not, given how laughably stupid the data manipulation is.
Excel isn't a database and autocorrect can lead to errors. In genetics, a ton of incorrect gene names have been published because of Excel's autocorrect. Not trying to argue against your main point, but it's worth pointing out that Excel can cause it's own problems.
you think these people just started lying and cheating? doubt it
@@someguy999 All over, Excel may be the program that caused the most economic damage in human history. It has features that border on insanity, e.g., dragging a point in the diagram around, and the data change accordingly in the table....
And every time you type "DNA", the german version writes "DANN" (--> "Then", a logical operator. Thank you, Microsoft. Thank you.)
Even if she was sabotaged, her accusation against co-authors guts her suit against Harvard as she's admitting the data was flawed.
The irony.
Plot twist: the real honesty experiment is on whether or not Harvard, the lawyers, the accused, and the defendants, as well as the public and the media, can all be honest about the dishonest data regarding an experiment on honesty and the characters involved, much like the math test and shredder experiment, just on a bigger scale.
Now if we see half the defendants and half the claimants signing at the top, it might be a sign.
I'd be suspicious of the paper just because it claims 79% of people cheated if not prompted with the honesty question before starting. Assuming they weren't aware that others were cheating, that seems crazy high for adults.
Is it really that strange? From just googling "percent college students cheat" it seems to be above 50%, some even saying it's over 70%. If that's true then I don't find it that weird that 79% people would cheat if there's money involved and the evidence is shredded.
To be fair, this is a scenario where you believe they have no way of telling and they're giving out money. There is a strong incentive for cheating and zero perceived risk.
NOT cheating is extremely rare. In the Navy I beat the "red/black" game by not cheating; but more importantly, convincing my team to not cheat. It apparently was some sort of a first at that leadership school. The idea is everyone cheats; there's something wrong (probably autistic) a person that does not cheat. IMO, religious people are less likely to cheat. I don't mean outwardly religious, but inwardly; knowing that someone (God) ALWAYS is watching and will know you cheated and prefers you not to cheat.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Interesting perspective. Maybe it's related to IQ. People with lower IQs have way more to gain from cheating, because if they play fair they will lose. People with higher IQs can achieve very much with honest work, so have less to gain and more to lose from cheating. In the end, though, when a competitive environment is full of cheaters who get away with it the temptation to cheat becomes much higher. The psychological study does seem like something I could justify cheating at. My argument would be 'They designed the study to test something and they chose to make it so we could cheat, therefore it is acceptable to cheat.' I feel like there'd still be something holding me back from cheating though, just some doubt about it.
Because it’s bullshit
As someone with no connection to Harvard or academia, these videos are very interesting and entertaining. Great work!
Excellent unbiased account of what transpired. And I learned a little about self-consistency bias on top of that. Thank you.
I've lost count of how many times I have had to pause and rewind to read captions that are on the screen for 3 frames.
The absolute balooney that was in that VPN ad segment feels really out of place considering the topic of the video. Not using a VPN does not mean your computer has a keylogger installed!
For real. If you have a keylogger installed already, there's no VPN that can save you.
this cannot be repaired. it must be dismantled and rebuilt, with the guilty paying for their crimes.
ok lmao what ya gonna do about it?
@@zoomer9686 'Весь мир насилья мы разрушим. До основанья , а затем... ', we know how that ends.
absolutely agree with omnivector 45
Great vid Pete
I love it when they scream sexism when it clearly isn’t. It just shows how desperate they are.
"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low"
lol! im keeping that one in my back pocket for cocktail parties!!
Not if your on the money she was making..
I have to admit I'm enjoying this is happening at Harvard,; and then has to go institutionally deeper whether Harvard successfully covers it up or not
Harvard is more a political institution and less a scholarly institution.
If she admits there were "issues" how can she sue the guys for pointing out said issues??
Excellent review!
I have to admit I am a little surprised that Harvard's internal report came to that conclusion. I would have expected them to protect their own and slam the BU prof. Or at least muddy the waters with sufficient ambiguity to bury the matter. Kudos to them. A bright light in a sordid case.
At least Harvard wasn’t afraid of being politically incorrect and did not make excuses for her because she’s a woman like they they are still making for their antisemitic black lesbian Harvard President who has plagiarized her way through her career.
They surely would have done that if they controlled whether the bloggers could publish it.
Someone that sues the accuser on the grounds of misogynistic behaviour, only to implicate a female fellow in an Agatha Christie plot, cannot be taken seriously…
Precisely this
She needs to be sued for fraud and made to pay 25M and all the back pay for being a fraud. The psychopaths rule because they are never held accountable.
According to IRS data 100% failure of reporting the income.
It would be interesting to investigate what kind of research is more likely to be fraudulent. I think I noticed a correlation between fraud and high media publicity, but this might be due to availability bias.
my guess it is probably actually related to funding. More money equals more lies
There may be a confounding factor. If someone publishes a fraudulent paper with a null result, it's unlikely people will pay it enough heed to detect any fraud.
More publicity = more narcissism = comorbidity with dark triad = more likelihood of cheating.
It's a valid hypothesis, sounds logical.
@unstablepc5913 don't measure how famous the *research*, but how much the Researcher promotes it (TEDs, podcasts, media interviews, etc.).
By far not the perfect solution, but may help
Motive and opportunity. Medical research has lots of motive, and the overseers are less likely to contest profitable research results. Soft sciences (psychology, sociology) as getting meaningful results is probably harder, and often honest results will result in denial of tenure, failure to get a Ph.D. if they go against senior faculty 's research, current fads, or hurt peoples' feelings. I know one Ph.D. candidate who was given his Ph. D., on condition he NOT publish his (politically unpopular) results. Gist was that Spending on grade 9-12 American schools has almost zero correlation with academic success in college, plus the only way to fail an education major is to not show up class/not turn in a paper. Some very high end suburban schools had worse results than dirt-poor schools, the bad results (and good results) persisted as long as the same management and teachers remained. The easy way to find the top schools was to find out where the Asian parent were moving into. Word of mouth from parents who care enough to do their own research.
Challenging research: economics/finance/stocks and bonds. The numbers matter, but usually, psychology matters more, and there's all that unreliable psychology research out there. Large numbers (insurance, consumer credit) can be accurate, within both small-scale and large-scale variance (white swans and light gray swans).
Good research: oilfields, because bad research means drilling dry wells. And no, not my field.
she really went for the Shaggy defence
She did it for a Scooby Snack? 😛
@@peglor different Shaggy
Not proof reading her own paper before publishing it is grounds for firing her all by itself.
These findings never get awards but is arguably the most important aspect of science communication.
Great content. Thank you so much for sharing. Keep up the great work.
Criticized by 3 males --> sue // fully blame fellow female co-author --> this is fine. Hypocrisy runs wild in these institutions.
She's blaming the coworker for the data being incorrect. Which may well be true.
She's criticising the investigation and the handling of it, as sexism. Apparently other instances of males caught faking data in the past have not been dealt with as harshly.
@@funkybuddhaInit I don't know enough about this area to comment, but any falsification of data should be handled to the full extent of the law. This proff included.
I know that your sponsor segment was just an ad read, but the info you gave about VPNs is incredibly misleading. Ironic considering the topic of the video is about failures of academic integrity and misconduct in honesty studies.
He’s just getting his bag, integrity doesn’t matter.
Thanks for this comment.
VPNs provide some real but mostly redundant security. Of course I don't blame non-specialiists for being fooled by the sales spin.
@@RichardChonakDownloading Trojans is how a hacker would get your password, which can happen with a VPN.
@@RichardChonak For a starters: They lie about what they offer. It is not a "virtual private network". What they sell is access to a HTTP proxy service.
@@rosomak8244 Thanks. The router setup guides on their web site seem to imply that the service is a real VPN, so I'd like to find out more about that.
The most shocking element of this story is how top HBS professors and high-level assistants play high school-level games of jealousy and cheating against one another; and then the time and resources it takes for ONE case to be disentangled! No wonder plagiarism and dishonesty is also rampant the top of Academia, as recent events have revealed in Congress.
This is a whole second season of drama. I'm so drawn to this story. I need to know how it ends
It's not true that being on the same WiFi can allow someone to access your browsing data, keystrokes, passwords or photos! Your device would have to been hacked. The admin, however, can see what devices are using the WiFi and the sites they are requesting. But the passwords and data transmitted are protected by hashing and encryption even without a VPN. Stop scaring people for sponsorship!!
if she's suing for sexism, that means she definitely is guilty
How?
@@funkybuddhaInitotherwise she would use logic to defend herself.
Gino is already dishonest. if the sexism claim were true then Nina wouldn't have been the perpetrator. If it is Nina then the sexism claim is false. She's already demonstrated her lack of integrity and attention detail here. So I wouldn't put it passed her to manipulate data. This is just laughable to see a Prestigeous professor under Harvard reduced to a child trying to defend her actions. I would have thought a person at harvard would do better at falsely defending themselves. Harvard is in serious trouble, the rot is starting to seep into the outside where everyone can see it.
This video taught me how to create a fraudulant work in a way that wouldn’t raise these red flags. And then if caught, how not to put blame. Time to produce original research papers.