They should do an experiment on married couples, see if any babies are born with extra thumbs.
All this time, nature has had it wrong? Or was that extra thumb evolutioned away because it got stubbed too often?
Holy cow. That is flat out amazing. Any word on whether he attested for data accuracy at the beginning or end of the paper?
OK, more seriously, here is the Ariely’s response to Data Colada: Response
Interestingly:
•I did not suspect any problems with the data.
• I also did not test the data for irregularities, which after this painful lesson, I will start
doing regularly
An actuary that admits this almost certainly would fail ASOP 23 . Sounds like a professionalism case study in the making.
ETA: As actuaries we most often operate in auditable circumstances. I would never imagine I could deny auditors access to the underlying seriatim data. The Data Colada group notes:
There will never be a perfect solution, but there is an obvious step to take: Data should be posted. The fabrication in this paper was discovered because the data were posted. If more data were posted, fraud would be easier to catch. And if fraud is easier to catch, some potential fraudsters may be more reluctant to do it. Other disciplines are already doing this. For example, many top economics journals require authors to post their raw data [16]. There is really no excuse. All of our journals should require data posting.
Yup, I was going to write about professionalism (I am eagerly awaiting my article on Batman and professionalism, yes, really) – ASOP 23, data reliance, etc.
This is one reason I always link to my original data sources (as well as mention the date I extracted the data). Anyway, there are loads of things I can think of relating to this stuff:
Sorry, to be clear, Ariely is not an actuary. I was musing about how this behavior would be analyzed if he were. And if he were an actuary hopefully he would have performed analysis under ASOP 23 that would have called the data into question (although I have a suspicion he faked the data himself).
Combo wtg science and wtg life insurance industry. I had a friend tell me that companies in Canada are now issuing life insurance to MtF trans people at standard female premiums (presuming underwriting is standard).
The cases that were described to me were on people that had fully (?) transitioned medically. I don’t know, but suspect if they haven’t transitioned medically they’d probably be declined due to outstanding medical treatment. And I don’t know how it’s handled if they’ve not medically transitioned at all. Probably stuff that’s still being worked through.
Nevertheless, wtg science for making this possible and wtg insurance for being progressive in this area. A great example of why I’m so passionate about the industry.
I believe it was just that, though they can’t really use it as PR. Nevertheless, it was a really good outreach decision.
Changing your linkedin background during pride month is one thing. Issuing female rates otoh is really putting your money where your mouth is.
How often do insurance companies write off a one off type claim where the cost to contest is greater than the cost to pay? Currently for trans people, that is what I would think the costs look like.
They actually tried to replicate (and couldn’t), which was published in 2020:
There were 5 authors on the first paper, and all 5 were on the second paper (plus 2 new authors), so if all those involved on the research side were noted, the fraudsters were not able to repeat the feat, I guess.
But… it could have been a grad student used on the research the first time who wasn’t around for the second time. Why they would fake data if they weren’t a listed author… hell if I know.
That Buzzfeed article you posted above indicates Ariely was the only person in contact with the insurance carrier and he received the data from the insurer. He can’t blame anyone else on the team. He blames the insurer.
The conflicting answers Ariely gave on the origins of the data in that article certainly have an odor to them.