A pareto distribution curve shows the vast superiority of the 20% who try over the lazy 80%
A normal distribution curve creates the illusion that most of the data only deviates a small amount from the mean and humans are typically close to being equal
Standard practice of Statistical significance tests in scientific journal articles pressupposes a normal distribution curve promoting "communist" ideology of human equality instead of vast differences in humans depending on their choices
That was interesting, but in the end, while I get your frustrations, it will go nowhere for all the reasons the poast dudes mentioned.
Data is a commodity and the information derived from it is a weapon. You can hide it, use it as a baseball bat on populations, or both.
The only way to get their raw data and methodology is to steal it or replicate it yourself.
You can not get their raw data but you can make a personal decision to boycott all scientific journal articles that do not publish raw data from your personal life
What do I mean by that. When someone says you should believe such and such because a scientific journal article says such and such is or is not statistically significant
You should say I do not believe you because they did not show the raw data so as far as I am concerned that study should be ignored
What we should be doing is archiving them for later evidence, not ignoring them.
The technology already exists to ensure integrity of raw data - immutable distributed databases that hash the results, i.e. blockchains, are just the most obvious solution available.
There is absolutely zero will to do this however, because as I already said, raw data is a strategic commodity that can be used to manufacture any information you want depending on how it's analyzed and interpreted.
Here is what you need to do
Go to a university and just start looking for articles with statistical significance tests
This will be basically anything in sociology other than case studies and a large number of studies in health sciences
Then go look and see if they gave you the raw data they used to calculate the mean, standard deviation and sample size
You can not prove it to someone else but you will personally know
Why would I need to do that? Literally nobody takes the social sciences seriously. It's basically astrology.
In fact, astrology might have better replication results.
The solutions I was talking about earlier were mean to be taken generically, not about a single specific study.
They do that a lot in health sciences also
This is why most of the doctors do not know what they are talking about in certain things like COVID 19, exercise & nutrition
They were taught bad research methodology
On a long enough timeline "bad research methodology" is a self-correcting problem.
They found that out in the USSR and Mao's China when reality failed to comply with their "science" and it ended with them stacking bodies of their own citizens tens of millions high.
