Talk:Dan Ariely

Source of burns

Two sources have conflicting reports about his burns: the Boston Globe says "As an 18-year-old military trainee, he suffered third-degree burns over 70 percent of his body when a magnesium battlefield flare unexpectedly exploded in front of him." Haaretz writes: "The accident happened when he was a high-school senior. Ariely was active in the Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed movement, and he and his friends were constructing "fire signs" (from wooden poles and rags shaped into letters that are set on fire). Hoping for a more impressive effect, they decided to use magnesium." Given that Haaretz is more detailed I tend to believe it. Mashkin (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a supreme court decision in the law suit from this accident that shows that Haaretz was correct [1]. Dangling Reference (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This contradicts Ariely's own writings, which match the Boston Globe's description, so it would be very "interesting" if his burns are actually a product of teenage negligence and not military service. However, the link Dangling Reference provides is a dangling reference. 2620:72:0:1F14:E9B7:FD61:4EC2:8C4F (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Marital status

Sorry, I'm a wiki noob, but following the link on "happily divorced", he states he's married.

According to his Wikipedia user page he says that he is divorced @Dariely67:. Per WP:BLPCOMPLAINT, can the content about him being married be removed from the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

He and Sumi Ariely are divorced. 76.91.242.255 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Research section

The research references in the research section has been criticized for good reason. See for example [2], [3]. I think it would be better if that section contained something else, or is deleted completely. Possibly it could be reworded in a NPOV way as well, suggestions there are welcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Jxyao (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is pretty neutral considering it is a biography. There are no biases in places where I'd expect bias in evaluating a person (race, gender, etc.). This is good. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information comes primarily from institutions that talk about where Dan Ariely worked. These are pretty neutral sources, but some can be biased because many private institutions have money as their best interest to obtain. Jxyao (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Content updates coming soon

Dan Ariely has agreed to give us a review of the accuracy of articles related to him and his work so we can improve those articles with corrections and or added content. WITH careful attention to high credibility citations and maintaining NPOV.

If anyone watching this article and Talk Page could help us make sure we are not wasting his time or ours. This is an experiment with a notable subject matter expert, and is intended to be Non-promotional, NPOV, well cited, and discussed as we go. Looking for help from anyone reading this with more onwiki experience, especially on biography articles. Please post to my talk page to discuss? Thank you!! DrMel (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (sorry for typos - posting from iPhone X^D )

UPDATE: New Wikipedian, Hilla, has graciously agreed to do one round of research, editing and updating of content on Dan Ariely page. \

We are seeking you, reading this Talk Page, and other Wikipedians who are more experienced and/or active to give us feedback as we go. If we get this figured out with Dr Ariely, then we could work on improving the quality of articles for other notables in a similar process. There are huge complaints about article accuracy among notables and we do a disservice to Wikipedia readers when we are do not keep articles accurate, current or complete.

If you are Patrolling Changes, reading this, please "Revert Changes" with kindness and customized advice. We're trying very very hard not to waste anyone's time with our Bold and Good Faith efforts.

Please watch this page and post a link to your talk page here if you are interested in the experiments! We are part of WikiSoCal, designing new volunteer opportunities for new and experienced Wikipedians that are fun and less problematic! Please join our meetup group and come visit us in San Diego! www.meetup.com/wikisocal. DrMel (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Updates - please review

Hey Wikipedians,

I did some research to update the content on the Dan Ariely page. I would like to kindly ask more experienced editors, if you can review the changes I want to make. My suggested changes are only for the first paragraph, education and academic career section and the business activities section.

I would like to make the following changes:

Dan Ariely (Hebrew: דן אריאלי; born April 29, 1967) is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University and is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight and also the co-founder of BEworks,Timeful, Genie and Shapa. Ariely's talks on TED have been watched more than 10 million times. He is the author of Predictably Irrational,The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth about Dishonesty. All three became New York Times best sellers. He also wrote two semi-books: Irrationally Yours-an illustrated collection of his immensely popular The Wall Street Journal advice column, “Ask Ariely”. And Payoff- a short TED book. He was also the producer and a participant in the movie (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies that won numerous awards.

Education and academic career section:

Ariely was a physics and mathematics major at Tel Aviv University, but transferred to philosophy and psychology. However, in his last year he dropped philosophy and concentrated solely on psychology, in which he received his B.A. in 1991. He also holds an M.A. (1994) and a Ph.D. (1996) in cognitive psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He completed a second doctorate in business administration at Duke University in 1998 at the urging of Nobel economic sciences laureate Daniel Kahneman.

After obtaining his PhD degree, he taught at MIT between 1998 and 2008, were he was formerly the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Behavioral Economics at MIT Sloan School of Management and at the MIT media lab. In 2008 Ariely returned to Duke University as James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics. And in 2015 he became the University Professor at Duke.

Business Activities section:

Ariely was a founding member of BEworks, the first management consulting firm dedicated to the practice of applying behavioral science to strategy, marketing, operations, and policy challenges. BEworks was acquired by kyu Collective on January 2017.

Ariely, together with Yuval Shoham and Jacob Bank, co-founded Timeful. Timeful is a technology company dedicated to reinventing the way that people manage their most precious resource: time. In 2015 Timeful was sold to Google.

Together with Doron Marco and Ayelet Carasso Dan is a co-founder of Genie, a magical kitchen appliance uniquely designed to create personalized healthy dishes, in about a minute, and together with Nati Lavi Dan is a co-founder of Shapa a health monitoring and encouraging company.

In October 2015, Ariely was named chief behavioral economist for Qapital. Ariely, who has also invested in the company, uses his access to the app's platform and database to assist him in independent research into consumer saving and spending behavior. In turn, Qapital can access Ariely's research to test technologies and ideas for use in the app. Entrepreneur magazine observed that, "It's a synergistic relationship that points at the emergence of a new trend: the collaboration between startups and social scientists." In February 2016 he became the Chief Behavioral Officer for Lemonade.

Please let me know what you think. THANK YOU :-)

Thank you, Hilla for your work on this experiment. Does anyone else have comments or suggestions? TiagoGracia (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Kayma deletion

I've edited extraneous, incorrect info fr/ this article before. Someone changed info on Kayma, so I checked the reference given. The Kayma website has no information about personnel, so the entire mishegas was deleted. Tapered (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I've put the image on the right in this version of the aricle: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Dan_Ariely&oldid=901374812

File:Dan Ariely enjoying a coffee, 2018.jpg

why was it replaced? --Asafabir (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Research Fraud Association

Just wanted to inform the maintainers of this page that Dan_Ariely has recently been linked to research fraud. (I use the word "linked" deliberately, since I am not saying there is enough evidence to suggest he has committed research fraud. Details are available here, as are statements by Prof. Ariey and others of his co-authors: http://datacolada.org/98

A mainstream source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction

193.154.173.233 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The article says Aimee Drolet Ross but SHOULD SAY Aimee Drolet Rossi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.242.255 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspension while at MIT

The fact that he was suspended is not in dispute. He confirmed it in an interview in Mako. He described as a misunderstanding that he thoughth it was approved. Haparsi (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

removed material

A long-inactive account just added long passages of negative info. I was thinking I'd move it here for discussion, but it's highly unlikely the account is legit.

It started off: "In August 2021, a group of anonymous data researchers published a critique of a 2012 paper co-authored by Dan Ariely, demonstrating that the underlying data set could not have occurred "1 in a million" times and was likely fabricated.

References

This isn't the place for anonymous researchers or anonymous others to post, citing a blog. If u have a reliable published sources about some controversy, you could post a link/citation, but not to your private blog site. --Doncram (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This was my addition - I had not used this Wikipedia account in a long time and am generally less familiar with the guidelines here, so my apologies if my edit was unusual. I was reading about the criticism of this particular paper and believe it makes an interesting and substantive addition to this particular section of Ariely's page. In fact, it looks as though this has already been noted on the Talk page (above).

One mistake that I made - while I think the researchers originally stayed anonymous, they subsequently revealed their identities (as named in the citation).

This event was also reported on by Forbes, Buzzfeed, and the Economist. Blazeofnoon (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Blazeofnoon, for following up. I was suspecting that your account was that of a "sockpuppet", and I was viewing the Datacolada site, a blog, to be inadequate for supporting strongly negative info, and that you were possibly one of the blog authors (which doesn't necessarily matter, and I am not demanding you say either way now, but it was rubbing me wrong that possibly anonymous criticism was possibly being pushed into Wikipedia by the critics themselves). So I didn't even want to copy your text to this Talk page. The facts that the bloggers do give names and apparently are real people (?), and that this was picked up by Forbes and Economist etc., make a difference. Back on 2 September I did read the blog, and it did sound seriously bad, that if the bloggers were correct then the data for the third study was pretty obviously manufactured (because a data set of persons' mileages would definitely not be uniformly distributed), but as a blog it was unacceptable for this biography of a living person. Now I have read the Forbes and Buzzfeed sources you provided (I don't have easy access to the Economist article, behind a paywall), and I understand there were other problems with the first and/or second studies in the paper, too, and disagreement among co-authors about retracting it all or not. This is significant information now, supported by reliable sources, so I agree that it should be covered in this article. It is definitely negative information, too, but I see that Ariely did provide responses, which will have to be mentioned, at least briefly, too. --Doncram (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Reason for Hebrew name in lead sentence?

Is there a reason for this? Is there any MOS for this? Also, is he Israeli, there are categories included for that. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

He's Israeli-American. ThreeOfCups (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

misleading IRB section

Ariely DID originally have an IRB approval. but they needed a new one after a small change in the plan, which Ariely didn't redo

One might see this as a major breach, or a minor falling to redo a technicality.

but the text must represent those facts, rather than - falsely - imply that Ariely straight did the study ignoring IRB processJazi Zilber (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the source for these claims and your edit? They appear to contradict the currently cited Hamakom article (my bolding):

We interviewed MIT officials who said the way in which the placebo experiment was conducted raised some serious concerns. According to sources with close knowledge of the study, Ariely did not request an IRB review from MIT’s ethics committee, COUHES, nor did he follow the required protocol for the experiment, which involved electric shocks to 80 participants, who were then given supposedly cheaper and more expensive medicine, both placebo.
One of the participants reported it, and a member of the ethics committee contacted Ariely in order to look into the case. In emails seen by Hamakom, Ariely responded jokingly, saying he has a general protocol for this type of experiment titled “Electric Shocks,” and that’s the one he had been following.
The ethics panel member had a harsh response, telling him she is aware of 12 protocols for experiments with him as research director, but not a single one has the words “electric shocks” in the title. She demanded Ariely provide the protocol number and the title of the experiment, and warned him the situation was under inquiry – and his experiment had been suspended indefinitely. The committee member asked him to send her to experiment protocol and notify her of the number of participants that same day. She also wrote to him that according to the institution’s records, his research assistant isn’t qualified to run human experiments, stressing that if true, this is a serious violation.
The IRB intervention led to arguments between Ariely’s research students and their professor. The students claimed they had been told by him that he had the necessary approval, whereas Ariely claimed he had a general protocol for an experiment with electric shocks, which he said he thought was enough. According to a person close to the research team at the time, many of them felt Ariely was trying to roll the blame for running an unauthorized experiment on his research students.
Ariely and his team eventually did get a belated IRB authorization for the experiment, which had to go through several changes before it was approved. One of these changes was replacing Ariely as primary investigator with one of his colleagues at the Media Lab, Prof. Andrew Lippman. In the final paper, Lippman is only credited with providing “logistical support.”
Following its investigation, the ethics committee banned Ariely from conducting research for a year.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Change "However, Drolet Ross does not recall that she or her research assistants ran the study as the authors described and she subsequently posted her 2021 email exchanges on the subject." to "However, Drolet Ross claims that she does not recall she or her research assistants running the study as the authors described and she subsequently posted her 2021 email exchanges on the subject." Reid2012 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023 (2)

Under the "Accusations of data fraud and academic misconduct" section, the 2nd sentence has a period where there should be a comma.

"MIT's Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted a human experiment originally**.** but afterwards, there was a change in the protocol for which a fresh approval was only granted after the experiments had been conducted."

Change . to , AceTylercholine (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete paragraph about Expression of Concern by Psychological Science?

The third paragraph of the "misconduct" section seems weakest, since it apparently describes some simple mistakes in statistical reporting that don't appear to rise to meet the misconduct bar. Since the other incidents discussed in this section seem much more problematic, it may make sense to delete it. Agreed? (One way in which this paragraph could be relevant is that it establishes a pattern of poor record-keeping.) DominikPeters (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

False accusations

There is a range -- including related to Covid and a lot from reporters (mostly Hebrew Channel 13)

Dariely67 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe useful links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta8O_df8sfY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariely67 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Digital-Prompts-External-v-3.pdf

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PainandMoneyApproval.pdf

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Pledges.pdf

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/sj-docx-1-pss-10.pdf  

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/DukeExchange1.pdf

https://danariely.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RE-Advanced-Hindsight.pdf Dariely67 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Replication

I suppose this part is not correct: “As of 2024, Ariely was able to replicate the initial results twice, demonstrating that signing on top is indeed an effective strategy.”

The first, published reference, has many results, but did not consider signing above or below.

The second reference is a preprint, but it also does not test the difference between signign above or below the form (in all the version, the signature was above).

So I removed the whole paragraph. Hynas (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)