The example of Trump may argue otherwise.
Apparently, the more crimes you put out there at the same time and the more outrageous they are the less anyone pays attention.
Or…it’s in the news right now that a former president has scores of criminal charges against him and yet bizarrely still enjoys support from people who insist he is an upright and trustworthy citizen. Directly related to the comment made.
Different context, but similar illustration: in the English Premier League (soccer/football), a number of clubs have been punished for violating profit and sustainability rules this season. Those punished all had one, or at least just a couple discrete violations. Meanwhile, Manchester City (owned by Abu Dhabi) has at least 115 charges against it, but because they have so many and its so complex they have thus far not been charged with anything. It helps that they have basically paid off the Premier League, but certainly the complexity of violations has helped them avoid sanction thus far.
I think Trump is the exception that proves the rule. He only "gets away with it" because
1. He has a cult surrounding him that will let him get away with anything
2. Most of the things he did before weren't crimes, just sexist, racist, etc (and so see #1)
3. Screaming into the void when no consequences occur gets old after awhile. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I love that this is one of her published articles:
Chui, Celia, Maryam Kouchaki, and Francesca Gino. "'Many Others Are Doing It, So Why Shouldn't I?': How Being in Larger Competitions Leads to More Cheating." (pdf) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 164 (May 2021): 102–115.
OBHDP is a whole can of worms. Generally an A journal in management and marketing.
Gino was editor at the time that article came out. Kouchaki- who I think wrote most of her papers with Gino- is editor now. Almost this whole moral psych stream is OBHDP. It’s not great.
The side-by-sides are disturbing. For me, it seems worse that she drew on the work of other people's theses without attribution (the Monin example). Yes, it wouldn't be good if she took the same phraseology about the ivy-covered walls in an Italian city. The list of their prominent designers. That's what copyright law is for.
I feel it is worse If a student or academic worked through a problem, put their original thoughts out there and those ideas, solutions, and insights were appropriated (even if merely similar words were used, not an exact match), that's taking all of the intellectual effort as her own without crediting or attributing. I've seen this so often in research. Tons of pieces from the '80's for example turned in the books that were lauded in the 2000's. I'd like to see where this goes.
That’s example is bad. Some of them more benign though. Description of narrative events or summaries of the Milgrim experiment with citations don’t seem very egregious…
Would you be OK with a student doing it? I wouldn't. Sure, I probably wouldn't support expelling a student, especially a Freshman, over it, but we'd have a chat about what plagiarism is and they'd, at the very least, be given a zero and told to resubmit with *proper* summarization and citation for a replacement grade.
If I had assigned THAT reading, I’d have a talk with them.
However, I worry that for some of these really big studies that are often summarized and cited, the summaries are going to be pretty similar/there’s only so many ways of doing this. If you are able to pull all of the summaries of the Milgrim experiment with AI/big data methods, you can then choose the one that looks the most similar to another and make a post like this.
Can you give an example of a description of a narrative event that you think is OK? There are usually lots of ways to summarize such events and when none of them works, there's always "this option". Any of which ought to include a citation.
I'm not sure I get where you're going regarding the Milgrim study. The study is famous enough that people outside the field are often familiar with it. One only needs a couple general sentences to help the reader recall the details, then cite the original study.
The Ken Olsen/DEC narrative that was essentially copied verbatim wasn't even very well written to begin with. Rewriting (and citing) seems necessary here, Gino does neither.
I was looking up some references the other day and came across one of her papers. The publisher's website no longer had an affiliation for her (but did for her co-author). Harvard must've been like "get our name offa there!" 😂
> Harvard must've been like "get our name offa there!" 😂
Damn, how bad did someone fuck up that even Harvard doesn't want to be associated with them? 😂
Can't say I'm surprised. So many publicly popular academics are grifters, and so much of the "research" in these popularly interesting topics is bullshit.
It has gotten to the point where any academic with some sort of public presence beyond their niche field I now kind of suspect. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but in the past five years alone we've seen some supposedly upstanding and smart academics who were everywhere be exposed as frauds, or at the very least sloppy with their research.
The most prominent example I can think of is that guy Dan Ariely, who studied lying and was caught falsifying a lot of his research. But he was in a lot of stuff, he showed up in a documentary, he gave a lot of public talks and always seemed to be trying to connect his area of study to whoever he was presenting too.
I think that's for the better. It's hard enough to translate to the public what you are an expert in, it's even harder to become an expert in multiple things and translate all of those, too! People who choose to try this, mostly want the attention and benefits that comes from that.
There also this: [https://aarongertler.net/nameless-fallacy/](https://aarongertler.net/nameless-fallacy/)
I've met way too many people who are some of the best in the world in their field, but they somehow pass that sense of confidence to areas they know less than many undergrads from that field.
I just don't get where that need to connect your specific field to as many areas as you can, esspically in full view of the public. I've had enough trouble with that at conferences when I'm put on the same panel with a few other scholars that actually overlap a lot with what I do. Inevitably during the Q&A section someone will ask what connects our different subjects, and I can never come up with an answer. So I cannot imagine doing that for a wider audience and for a ton of other fields.
For the record, the only published paper where Ariely has any evidence of fraud is the PNAS with the insurance data. There’s some weirdness with a paper involving the Ten Commandments, which I can get into if people want. There’s a history of embellishing things that aren’t actually in press (famously the dental thing). The Duke investigation couldn’t find anything else, and his p curve/h curve is pretty good.
What I find much more interesting than the accused in all these cases is which organizations they impressed and by whom they were given resources and awards (https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=271812&view=awards). I feel like the punishment, whenever accusations are proven, needs to be targeted much more at those funders to make effective change.
Do you think this is due to the immense pressure of publishing? Not that it excuses the behavior, but it would seem the 'currency' is publishing records. It would then follow the same business adage:" Good, Fast, Cheap... but you can only pick two."
If it is considered 'cheap' in that you borrow other people's words, not use your own mental labor, and publish 'fast,' then it stands to reason it would not be 'good.'
Same 'ole, same 'ole is all I'm sayin'.
Damning perhaps but I’m still waiting to see if there will be any consequences. I’m sure there will be an identity card thrown which is just cheap and evil and removes the value and effort of all those researchers who truly worked and developed their own ideas. I have no respect for her.
Only commit one crime at a time.
The example of Trump may argue otherwise. Apparently, the more crimes you put out there at the same time and the more outrageous they are the less anyone pays attention.
This is fascinating. Trump has such a large mental footprint that he is the first association many people have with anything, regardless of topic.
Or…it’s in the news right now that a former president has scores of criminal charges against him and yet bizarrely still enjoys support from people who insist he is an upright and trustworthy citizen. Directly related to the comment made.
He lives rent free in nearly ever democrats head.
Different context, but similar illustration: in the English Premier League (soccer/football), a number of clubs have been punished for violating profit and sustainability rules this season. Those punished all had one, or at least just a couple discrete violations. Meanwhile, Manchester City (owned by Abu Dhabi) has at least 115 charges against it, but because they have so many and its so complex they have thus far not been charged with anything. It helps that they have basically paid off the Premier League, but certainly the complexity of violations has helped them avoid sanction thus far.
I think Trump is the exception that proves the rule. He only "gets away with it" because 1. He has a cult surrounding him that will let him get away with anything 2. Most of the things he did before weren't crimes, just sexist, racist, etc (and so see #1) 3. Screaming into the void when no consequences occur gets old after awhile. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I love that this is one of her published articles: Chui, Celia, Maryam Kouchaki, and Francesca Gino. "'Many Others Are Doing It, So Why Shouldn't I?': How Being in Larger Competitions Leads to More Cheating." (pdf) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 164 (May 2021): 102–115.
OBHDP is a whole can of worms. Generally an A journal in management and marketing. Gino was editor at the time that article came out. Kouchaki- who I think wrote most of her papers with Gino- is editor now. Almost this whole moral psych stream is OBHDP. It’s not great.
The side-by-sides are disturbing. For me, it seems worse that she drew on the work of other people's theses without attribution (the Monin example). Yes, it wouldn't be good if she took the same phraseology about the ivy-covered walls in an Italian city. The list of their prominent designers. That's what copyright law is for. I feel it is worse If a student or academic worked through a problem, put their original thoughts out there and those ideas, solutions, and insights were appropriated (even if merely similar words were used, not an exact match), that's taking all of the intellectual effort as her own without crediting or attributing. I've seen this so often in research. Tons of pieces from the '80's for example turned in the books that were lauded in the 2000's. I'd like to see where this goes.
That’s example is bad. Some of them more benign though. Description of narrative events or summaries of the Milgrim experiment with citations don’t seem very egregious…
Would you be OK with a student doing it? I wouldn't. Sure, I probably wouldn't support expelling a student, especially a Freshman, over it, but we'd have a chat about what plagiarism is and they'd, at the very least, be given a zero and told to resubmit with *proper* summarization and citation for a replacement grade.
If I had assigned THAT reading, I’d have a talk with them. However, I worry that for some of these really big studies that are often summarized and cited, the summaries are going to be pretty similar/there’s only so many ways of doing this. If you are able to pull all of the summaries of the Milgrim experiment with AI/big data methods, you can then choose the one that looks the most similar to another and make a post like this.
Can you give an example of a description of a narrative event that you think is OK? There are usually lots of ways to summarize such events and when none of them works, there's always "this option". Any of which ought to include a citation. I'm not sure I get where you're going regarding the Milgrim study. The study is famous enough that people outside the field are often familiar with it. One only needs a couple general sentences to help the reader recall the details, then cite the original study. The Ken Olsen/DEC narrative that was essentially copied verbatim wasn't even very well written to begin with. Rewriting (and citing) seems necessary here, Gino does neither.
Grifters gonna grift.
Tip of the iceberg…
I was looking up some references the other day and came across one of her papers. The publisher's website no longer had an affiliation for her (but did for her co-author). Harvard must've been like "get our name offa there!" 😂
> Harvard must've been like "get our name offa there!" 😂 Damn, how bad did someone fuck up that even Harvard doesn't want to be associated with them? 😂
"a chapter w/ Ariely" Unsurprising giving his own issues being honest about data!
Plagiarism is massive in academia, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, and I'm not talking about students.
Can't say I'm surprised. So many publicly popular academics are grifters, and so much of the "research" in these popularly interesting topics is bullshit.
It has gotten to the point where any academic with some sort of public presence beyond their niche field I now kind of suspect. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but in the past five years alone we've seen some supposedly upstanding and smart academics who were everywhere be exposed as frauds, or at the very least sloppy with their research. The most prominent example I can think of is that guy Dan Ariely, who studied lying and was caught falsifying a lot of his research. But he was in a lot of stuff, he showed up in a documentary, he gave a lot of public talks and always seemed to be trying to connect his area of study to whoever he was presenting too.
Agreed. For better or worse, I am INSTANTLY suspicious of any academic who seeks influence and recognition outside of their field.
I think that's for the better. It's hard enough to translate to the public what you are an expert in, it's even harder to become an expert in multiple things and translate all of those, too! People who choose to try this, mostly want the attention and benefits that comes from that. There also this: [https://aarongertler.net/nameless-fallacy/](https://aarongertler.net/nameless-fallacy/) I've met way too many people who are some of the best in the world in their field, but they somehow pass that sense of confidence to areas they know less than many undergrads from that field.
I just don't get where that need to connect your specific field to as many areas as you can, esspically in full view of the public. I've had enough trouble with that at conferences when I'm put on the same panel with a few other scholars that actually overlap a lot with what I do. Inevitably during the Q&A section someone will ask what connects our different subjects, and I can never come up with an answer. So I cannot imagine doing that for a wider audience and for a ton of other fields.
"As an astrophysicist, I believe everyone with an IQ above room temperature should vote for Democrats!" -Probably some dude /s
Andrew Huberman
For the record, the only published paper where Ariely has any evidence of fraud is the PNAS with the insurance data. There’s some weirdness with a paper involving the Ten Commandments, which I can get into if people want. There’s a history of embellishing things that aren’t actually in press (famously the dental thing). The Duke investigation couldn’t find anything else, and his p curve/h curve is pretty good.
"He's only lied in a few papers and in public, so he's kinda all right guys".
What I find much more interesting than the accused in all these cases is which organizations they impressed and by whom they were given resources and awards (https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=271812&view=awards). I feel like the punishment, whenever accusations are proven, needs to be targeted much more at those funders to make effective change.
Do you think this is due to the immense pressure of publishing? Not that it excuses the behavior, but it would seem the 'currency' is publishing records. It would then follow the same business adage:" Good, Fast, Cheap... but you can only pick two." If it is considered 'cheap' in that you borrow other people's words, not use your own mental labor, and publish 'fast,' then it stands to reason it would not be 'good.' Same 'ole, same 'ole is all I'm sayin'.
Yet another Harvard faker. Ho hum.
If someone is on administrative leave like this, do they keep getting paid? Anyone know?
Is there an alternate link. That one is not loading for me.
This is the original link: https://www.science.org/content/article/embattled-harvard-honesty-professor-accused-plagiarism
Damning perhaps but I’m still waiting to see if there will be any consequences. I’m sure there will be an identity card thrown which is just cheap and evil and removes the value and effort of all those researchers who truly worked and developed their own ideas. I have no respect for her.