Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That’s called “stereotype threat”, and it’s been caught up in the replication crisis. In short, the effect is hard to reproduce and tends to be small. It’s been known for some time now, here’s an article from 2015: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201512...

I wish people would stop bringing up studies that don’t reproduce, they’re no better than anecdotes.



The problem with that is, at least in my experience, that you read such things once from a reputable source and never check it again.


When I was studying undergrad psych, Psychology Today was falling into disrepute.

Are they still a reputable source, today?


Psychology Today is not great in general, but the article I linked to is written by a social psychology PhD (Lee Jussim).


Ok, good to know, thanks!

Setting this aside for a deeper read, but it appears at first glance that the concerns revolve around statistical technique rather than methodological soundness?


Isn't that one of those clickfarm blogs?


It can't be "still reputable" after "falling into disrepute".


“was falling” in the imperfect tense.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: