Twin study suggests rationality and intelligence share the same genetic roots - the study suggests that being irrational, or making illogical choices, might simply be another way of measuring lower intelligence.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/twin-study-suggests-rationality-and-intelligence-share-the-same-genetic-roots/

[u/SoldnerDoppel]

That's why replication is so important, though there's little interest in it since it's so "unglamorous".

[u/tufftricks → u/SoldnerDoppel]

That's why replication is so important

Are we still not neck deep in the "replication crisis"

[u/shoutsfrombothsides → u/tufftricks]

We are, yes.

[u/Cyllid → u/tufftricks]

Pretty sure that's what the part of your quote that you deleted, implied.

[u/froznovr → u/SoldnerDoppel]

That, and I heard it's difficult to get funding from grants to do anything that isn't novel.

[u/BonJovicus → u/froznovr]

This is the central issue. Because grants are incredibly competitive, there is no reason to give money to someone who is going to do something that has already been done. You can make arguments for doing the same experiment with a different methodology because of advancements in technology or something, but you can't propose to do a true replication experiment.

[u/Mylaur → u/BonJovicus]

You could then be inspired by a paper, replicate the previous study as a process for your new study, thus hiding replication inside a novel-aimed grant.

[u/gurgelblaster → u/SoldnerDoppel]

Replication doesn't help if the experiment design is built to give a certain result and omit alternative hypotheses from the start.

[u/pimpmastahanhduece → u/SoldnerDoppel]

Also falsifiable. As the proposer, you must set terms which you accept will disprove yourself.

[u/BonJovicus → u/SoldnerDoppel]

It isn't even considered unglamorous. It just gets branded as derivative and boring. No major journal is going to publish a replication experiment that has the same results. And even if your results are different, you will then have to jump through hoops to have a good reason for why your results are different assuming the original result wasn't fraudulent. At that point you are years of funding down the drain on something that might not pan out.

[u/Mylaur → u/SoldnerDoppel]

Giving money to replicate the study, absolutely unflattering, busy work that's unfunded and uninteresting, from the founder's perspective. Plus what's the outlook of the scientific community? Novel work or the scientific police guy trying to replicate your experiment to fact check your paper.

I wish we didn't have this mentality.