asdf2341

I'm in an adjacent academic field and know some of the principals in the story.

Based on private conversations with mutual friends, the reason Cuddy received so much heat is that she continues to profit off the mistaken findings and refuses to disavow them, despite overwhelming evidence.

She embodies everything wrong with the popular discussion of science.

The only analogue I can think of is Brian Wansink, whose scandal is much newer; who did not go nearly so far to profit from his own results; and who has received plenty of heat so far.

"Although 11 new papers have recently been published that do not show the downstream effects of power posing on behaviors, Cuddy is still fighting for power posing."

Yes they are considered to be replications.