Psyched!

And you wonder why many researchers are leary of popular press. Popular press outlets often (not even sometimes) are very inaccurate. I used to think it was just that they exaggerated here and there, but I am quickly learning that is the least of the problems.

That being said, Begley's error was probably stats related and motivation related. She probably didnt understand the stats. But, like you point out, she was highly motivated to prove her point. It is possible that she saw in the results what she wanted to see, and when I say that, I really do mean visually to an extent.

She probably saw the data and the paper, had an idea of what she wanted it to say going in, and read the paper as if it said what she wanted it to say. If she had a better stats understanding though, maybe that would have prevented this.

The readers might recall that I wrote a post rebutting Ms. Begley's Newsweek article wherein she "criticized" evolutionary psychology.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200906/the-never-e...

Ms. Begley is either a dishonest ideologue who fully understand evolutionary psychology but decides to misconstrue it on every occasion or is a moronic ideologue who simply is incapable of understanding the key evolutionary tenets. I sent her an email to advise her of the rebuttal that I had written to her article. She never bothered to reply.

GS

I wrote a letter to Psychology Today in response to the "British newspapers make things up" blog because the blog itself was "made up". (The blog suggested something was made up with evidence.) My letter has not been published and has not been replied to. I wonder why.

Just like the article you complain about here in this blog, your editors and the British media interpret things. They do not slavishly, verbatim say what people tell them to say. Neither would you slavishly publish my letter of criticism, and I wouldn't expect you to. You make a decision based on what you know, the background and several other factors - including, importantly, whether it would interest the readers.

As someone who is both a psychologist who gets quoted every week in the British media and who is also a journalist I can see things from both sides of the argument. Science reporting generally is poor; but that does not mean things are made up.

As you suggest in this blog post, it may well be that the reporting is less than accurate because of "agendas". Anyone who thinks the media - including Psychology Today - is unbiased doesn't understand the way the media works. Scientists expect their material to be reported without bias. Get real, it will be reported WITH bias. Live with it.

Indeed, scientists themselves are biased; they start off with hypotheses which are of necessity biased in favour of a particular view. To then expect people who report their work to be unbiased is, frankly, daft.

The real issue is appalling PR from the science community. One person reports material - perhaps inaccurately, perhaps with an agenda and suddenly there are masses of complaints. However, if that one inaccurate report was subsumed by a plethora of accurate, positive and well written reports it becomes somewhat invisible and therefore doesn't matter as much. However, science does not get the reporting it deserves because science is so poor at marketing itself. That means the newspapers and magazines don't put in the effort either. Like many issues, complaining about how we are treated often means we need to look at our own behaviour first.

I am not suggesting that reporters are good and brilliant - far from it. But complaining about poor reporting is not going to get it changed. Looking at the way we present material to reporters, how we inform them and how we market psychology to them is the answer to reducing this kind of issue in the future.

Even real science research that is valid one year is not 20 years later. So solid research or not we are still operating in a world of uncertainty much more than we assume.

Also objective science cannot possibly exist simply because the common denominator is still humans obviously and all humans have filters, biases, etc...

Everyone needs readers to keep them on their toes. I'll bet Ms. Begley will take a second look at her stats after this. For that, she should thank you, Matt. I happen to think the parental investment model is largely bunk (as applied to humans), but I agree that shoddy reasoning isn't the way to demonstrate shoddy reasoning!

I view this as a very serious ethical breach if the blog accurately quotes both the source and Ms. Begley's article. It is unethical for a "science reporter" to totally misrepresent the science. It is especially so when the misrepresentation advances her personal philosophical predilections.
If I were the Newsweek Editor, I'd fire her. And, if I were the author of this blog, Matt, I'd forward a copy of the blog to the Newsweek editor and ask him: "wassup with the make believe science piece? It's unethical to call something science when it's just "lie about the science..."" And, if the supposed science editor can't figure out the rather simplistic statistics in such an article, she is simply not qualified to be a "science" anything, much less "editor."

The difference is “willful” bias. Contorting the study to fit one’s preconceived concepts isn’t valid “science reporting”. A researcher can hope a particular hypothesis is going to be correct, that doesn’t preclude the research from being untainted.

@ Graham Jones

“But complaining about poor reporting is not going to get it changed.” I would think that is exactly how to get something corrected. You made it clear you believe unbiased reporting is not possible, so it matters little in what form you present the information to them. If the bias of the reporter is set in stone, wrapping a study in ribbons and garnished with a cherry won’t induce them to report it without their personal bias. People do have their own agendas.

I read the Psy Today blogs for the very fact that many of the writer’s will cross check each other. As a lay person I rely on the academics to check the veracity of certain “science reporting”. Then I have the ability, with their citations and background information ,to make a rational and hopefully more comprehensive decision about the viability of the particular subject.

It might be willful, but perhaps Begley has inherited an inability to understand statistics, or her ancestors found survival easier if they fudged a little? Not her fault the data are nuanced.

Oh, wait, it was easy to read in plain English. Then Newsweek should be applauded for its very lenient jobs program. Maybe Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass can work there?

But thank you Matt for catching this systemic error and for alerting Newsweek. Your posts are always excellent.

I find it terryfying how a popular journalist can lie, potentially influencing opinions of millions of people worldwide.

I am asking anyone reading this... Isn't she popular BECAUSE she lies?
What I have noticed in any media (at least in my country) is that people are told what they want to hear, not the truth about something. Even in "scientific" publications I have noticed a lot of alterations and interpretations of facts, just to grab the attention of the reader.
I don't know this woman, but I'm almost sure she knows very well she contorted the data for ratings.
I always ask myself this when reading something of this sort. And I'm curious to find out what others think about this as well, since I may also be wrong, considering I haven't got so much data on these matters.