5 ms·

Actually, the article covers a number of potential causes for the observed behaviors. Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here. Also,

Actually, the article covers a number of potential causes for the observed behaviors. Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here. Also, is it me or are the top comments here on HN for this post exceptionally terrible..

choot 8y ago
I am writing from my experience, sorry i didn't have time to read the article.
- maneesh 8y ago
  I love that you didn't have time to read the article but enough time to write a 550 word 9-point list post.
geezerjay 8y ago
> Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here. Those weird things are also known as real life.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I believe the correct term is 'anectdata.' The article uses a study with many participants to try to explain it, while this comment does not.
  - choot 8y ago
    Sure, it's my experience. I am a psychologist. Take a look at my comment history. About the study, it just asks people. Do you expect people to be truthful? You should consider asking people if they'll do something amoral if you offer them money, also tell them you are doing this for a study. And you'll see majority of people will answer, NO. But in realife, you can pay people to do ammoral things and lot many people will be willing to accept it. In some cases, they'll need a long term connection with you before they take your offer. Study isn't necessarily always more accurate. Specially, if it's about self reported data regarding humans on subjective matters. You can ask someone, how many times they had sex. You might get an accurate answer. But you can't expect accurate answer when you ask them, why aren't they having more sex. Most people don't have introspection ability to accurately identify their real reasons. This is why you need a pyscologist which is what I am.
    - sterlind 8y ago
      For a psychologist, you've easily suckered yourself into a common cognitive bias: appeal to authority. (and likely Dunning-Kruger) You've presented only anecdata, then incessantly restated your credentials to shroud them in authority. But there are a lot of psychologists, and a decent proportion of those are crackpots. How can I trust you're not a crackpot?
      - choot 8y ago
        The article also uses "this is a study". So I decided to use "this is a psycologist". Both of which are factually correct. If it makes, it appeal to authority in my case then it's equally applicable to the study defined in the article. See, i am not presenting here any groundbreaking theory or refuting anything stated in the article but merely stating my experience. How can it make me a crackpot?
        harshalizee 8y ago
        lol, that's not how this works. You and a peer reviewed study do not share the same kind of legitimacy and definetely not equally applicable. Yours is, at best an opinion. The fact that as a 'pyscologist' (that's not how you spell it by the way), you can't see the difference makes it look like you're proving his point.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > I believe the correct term is 'anectdata. Actually, no. That's the expression you've tried to use to move the goalpost when your baseless assertion that simple life facts were not real was challenged, and thus felt the need to weasel yourself into changing your original claim from an assertion that it was not realistic to an assertion that although it is realistic it somehow isn't representative.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Those are not facts, they are opinions and one-off observations (which another observer may disagree with). There's a big difference, and it's generally useful to understand the difference when having conversations and trying to do critical thinking.
    - dang 8y ago
      Crossing into incivility is not ok here regardless of how wrong or annoying some other comment is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.

choot 8y ago

I am writing from my experience, sorry i didn't have time to read the article.

maneesh 8y ago
I love that you didn't have time to read the article but enough time to write a 550 word 9-point list post.

geezerjay 8y ago

> Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here. Those weird things are also known as real life.

craftyguy 8y ago
I believe the correct term is 'anectdata.' The article uses a study with many participants to try to explain it, while this comment does not.
- choot 8y ago
  Sure, it's my experience. I am a psychologist. Take a look at my comment history. About the study, it just asks people. Do you expect people to be truthful? You should consider asking people if they'll do something amoral if you offer them money, also tell them you are doing this for a study. And you'll see majority of people will answer, NO. But in realife, you can pay people to do ammoral things and lot many people will be willing to accept it. In some cases, they'll need a long term connection with you before they take your offer. Study isn't necessarily always more accurate. Specially, if it's about self reported data regarding humans on subjective matters. You can ask someone, how many times they had sex. You might get an accurate answer. But you can't expect accurate answer when you ask them, why aren't they having more sex. Most people don't have introspection ability to accurately identify their real reasons. This is why you need a pyscologist which is what I am.
  - sterlind 8y ago
    For a psychologist, you've easily suckered yourself into a common cognitive bias: appeal to authority. (and likely Dunning-Kruger) You've presented only anecdata, then incessantly restated your credentials to shroud them in authority. But there are a lot of psychologists, and a decent proportion of those are crackpots. How can I trust you're not a crackpot?
    - choot 8y ago
      The article also uses "this is a study". So I decided to use "this is a psycologist". Both of which are factually correct. If it makes, it appeal to authority in my case then it's equally applicable to the study defined in the article. See, i am not presenting here any groundbreaking theory or refuting anything stated in the article but merely stating my experience. How can it make me a crackpot?
      - harshalizee 8y ago
        lol, that's not how this works. You and a peer reviewed study do not share the same kind of legitimacy and definetely not equally applicable. Yours is, at best an opinion. The fact that as a 'pyscologist' (that's not how you spell it by the way), you can't see the difference makes it look like you're proving his point.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > I believe the correct term is 'anectdata. Actually, no. That's the expression you've tried to use to move the goalpost when your baseless assertion that simple life facts were not real was challenged, and thus felt the need to weasel yourself into changing your original claim from an assertion that it was not realistic to an assertion that although it is realistic it somehow isn't representative.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Those are not facts, they are opinions and one-off observations (which another observer may disagree with). There's a big difference, and it's generally useful to understand the difference when having conversations and trying to do critical thinking.
  - dang 8y ago
    Crossing into incivility is not ok here regardless of how wrong or annoying some other comment is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.