Skip to content

snapshot-v2.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
181 lines (122 loc) · 6.71 KB

snapshot-v2.md

File metadata and controls

181 lines (122 loc) · 6.71 KB
Raw

Snapshot v2

Title

Power Posing: a living knowledge page for a disputed scientific claim

What this page is

This page is the public homepage for the current power-posing case. It is a reader-facing release view over a small governed object set, not a complete archive and not the full live graph.

At a glance, the case now reads like this:

  • the original strong-form claim is contested and significantly weakened
  • a narrower descendant claim is contested but still surviving

If you want the raw governed objects behind this page, follow the object links below. If you want the newer public claim-page layer, use the claim-page links now exposed in the sections below.

Current visible judgment

The status phrases used below are not just narrative decoration. They are the current public renderings of the governed judgment surface.

You do not need to read the full governance layer first to understand the page. But if you want to see how these phrases map back to the object layer, start here:

Original claim

Current state: contested and significantly weakened

The original headline claim says that brief expansive posture can change hormone levels and affect risk-taking behavior. In this pilot, that strong-form package is no longer treated as intact.

Descendant claim

Current state: contested but still surviving

A weaker descendant claim remains in play: expansive posture may affect subjective feelings of power or confidence even if the stronger hormone-and-risk-taking claim does not hold.

Why this case matters

This case makes a structural problem easy to see.

The original paper still exists as a stable publication artifact. But the knowledge status of its core claim did not stay still. It was amplified, challenged, weakened, and then partially re-read through a narrower descendant path.

In a static publication system, those later changes are scattered across papers, statements, corrections, and memory. In a living knowledge system, they should remain attached to the claim lineage itself.

Original claim neighborhood

The original 2010 paper reported that high-power posing produced:

  • higher testosterone,
  • lower cortisol,
  • greater feelings of power,
  • and more tolerance for risk.

In this pilot, the original claim neighborhood is represented by:

  • C-0001 — original strong-form claim
  • ../claims/C-0001.md — public claim page for the original claim
  • E-0001 — initial publication and early amplification context

Canonical source ids used here:

  • Carney_Cuddy_Yap_2010
  • Early_public_amplification_context

See ../references.md for the current source map. See ../sources/README.md for the current public source-page layer.

What changed later

The case did not collapse in one step. It was hit by empirical challenge, internal withdrawal of support, broader methodological attack, and then a split into a weaker descendant route.

1. Empirical challenge

A larger replication challenge appeared and directly targeted the core effect.

  • Object: D-0001
  • Canonical source id: Ranehill_et_al_2015

2. Internal collapse of support

Support weakened from inside the original authorship chain.

  • Object: D-0002
  • Canonical source id: Dana_Carney_2016_statement

3. Methodological attack

The surrounding evidentiary profile also came under methodological attack.

  • Object: D-0003
  • Canonical source id: Simmons_Simonsohn_2016

4. Lineage split

The case did not end cleanly. Instead, the pilot models a weaker descendant path.

  • Object: C-0002
  • Public claim page: ../claims/C-0002.md
  • Canonical source ids: Dana_Carney_2016_statement, TED_Corrections_2017

Why the descendant claim is a separate object

The weaker path is not treated here as a casual rewording of the original claim. It is treated as a different claim in the same lineage.

That distinction matters because real knowledge does not always behave like a binary switch. A claim can weaken, split, retreat, and survive in narrower descendant form.

This is exactly the sort of history that static publication artifacts hide badly.

Snapshot reading path

A reader who wants to go one layer deeper should follow this order:

  1. ../status-legend-v1.md
  2. ../verdict-grammar-v1.md
  3. ../claims/README.md
  4. ../claims/C-0001.md
  5. ../claims/C-0002.md
  6. V-0001
  7. V-0002
  8. D-0001
  9. D-0002
  10. D-0003
  11. ../timeline/events.md
  12. ../references.md
  13. ../sources/README.md
  14. ../references-metadata-v1.md

Included objects

Snapshot note

This is still a pilot page, not a final product renderer. But it is closer to a true public living knowledge homepage than the earlier snapshot draft:

  • object references are explicit,
  • source ids are canonicalized against references-metadata-v1.md,
  • status wording is now backed by status-legend-v1.md and verdict-grammar-v1.md,
  • the reader can move from narrative view into governed objects without guessing where to click,
  • and the new public claim-page and source-page layers now give the case a more legible public ecology beyond the snapshot alone.