The first example is about "power posing", it's suggested that this has been "debunked". This has become a controversial topic for some reason (the idea that posture influences mood and mindset is not particularly surprising, but ok) but the episode has less to do about a surprising study being wrong and more to do with people getting carried away with findings.
It's interesting that we treat the debunking treatment with the same appetite for salaciousness though. Very little actual skepticism is reserved for those doing the debunking, because just as people yearn for positive results, they also like to see people being taken down. In Amy Cuddy's case it is particularly strange how personal people got who have attacked her and her line of research became and how eager people are to use the pseudoscience label despite the fact that this is serious research striving to understand a topic that isn't even that controversial to start with. Where does all that passion come from?
In any case, when follow-up studies fail to reproduce earlier findings or when other authors spot issues with the experimental methods used, this is just science working properly. Unsuccessful studies in the wake of a surprising study don't immediately indicate that the earlier study was a failure and to suggest so is to do the scientific method is disservice. A good line of research is going to produce successful and unsuccessful studies, calls for moderate interpretation of findings should go both ways and with respect to how we develop an understanding in the first place.
And for what it is worth, a further analysis of 55 studies from 2017 does show that the line of research has merit. See:
P-Curving a More Comprehensive Body of Research on Postural Feedback Reveals Clear Evidential Value for Power-Posing Effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017)
It's interesting that we treat the debunking treatment with the same appetite for salaciousness though. Very little actual skepticism is reserved for those doing the debunking, because just as people yearn for positive results, they also like to see people being taken down. In Amy Cuddy's case it is particularly strange how personal people got who have attacked her and her line of research became and how eager people are to use the pseudoscience label despite the fact that this is serious research striving to understand a topic that isn't even that controversial to start with. Where does all that passion come from?
In any case, when follow-up studies fail to reproduce earlier findings or when other authors spot issues with the experimental methods used, this is just science working properly. Unsuccessful studies in the wake of a surprising study don't immediately indicate that the earlier study was a failure and to suggest so is to do the scientific method is disservice. A good line of research is going to produce successful and unsuccessful studies, calls for moderate interpretation of findings should go both ways and with respect to how we develop an understanding in the first place.
And for what it is worth, a further analysis of 55 studies from 2017 does show that the line of research has merit. See:
P-Curving a More Comprehensive Body of Research on Postural Feedback Reveals Clear Evidential Value for Power-Posing Effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017)