Andrew and I warned you about "power poses" in Slate some time ago (link).
Breaking news is that Dana Carney, a co-author of the paper that claimed the benefits of the power pose, has now confirmed that she no longer believes in the power pose. She is actively discouraging researchers from this "waste of time and resources."
Here is her statement (PDF link), which is well worth reading in full. This is a courageous statement.
The statement discloses a variety of tricks used to game p-values so that they meet the publishable 0.05 threshold. Everyone suspects someone else is playing such tricks but it's rare when someone actually confesses to them.
The highlights are:
The self-reported DV was p-hacked in that many different power questions were asked and those chosen were the ones that "worked".
Many A/B testing platforms come with a battery of hundreds of metrics automatically computed for each test. No further comment needed.
As of today, the TED talk on "power poses" is still going strong. It has accumulated 36 million "views" and the official description does not mention Dana Carney's retraction.