I'm guessing you won't be getting a Holiday card from...Fredrickson?
Actually, I think she is describing there some more recent research, in which she combines the angle that we critiqued in the article published yesterday (which was more about the relationship between your general experience of well-being and gene expression), with another previous study in which she claimed to have demonstrated that certain forms of meditation improved your health in other ways. (Incidentally, this other previous study is also severely flawed, and we have a critique in preparation.)Here's a lecture by Dr. Frederickson. She mentions the discredited research around 8:55
As far as my co-authors and I have been able to tell from glimpses of graphs that have appeared on slide presentations, the statistical analyses in this new (as yet unpublished) study that I think she is discussing here are based on the same techniques that we have shown to be invalid. Hopefully, if that's the case and her lab submits this work for publication, it will be subjected to appropriate scrutiny by the reviewers.
In a reply to Brown, Frederickson and coauthor Steven Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles, reject the criticism and say they have replicated their 2013 findings in a new sample of 122 people.
Well, if you think that the methodology is not flawed, then this would be OK. So actually, in itself, this doesn't constitute evidence either way.New sample, same flawed methodology? It follows that the same flawed conclusions will be generated, right? Am I missing something?