10 ms·

> To find out, we ran another experiment in which participants imagined buying a bottle of wine. We had half of the participants imagine considering opening it

> To find out, we ran another experiment in which participants imagined buying a bottle of wine. We had half of the participants imagine considering opening it one night, but deciding not to. This is the second study like this on HN in a couple weeks. When the heck did asking participants to imagine something and then asking them how they felt, and assuming this tells you something valid about things other than imagining things... when did this become a popular form of research? It seems crazy to me.

verve_rat 5y ago
Seems like you could probably do some effective and efficient research using games. I always have to force myself to use the one shot super weapon, or even a few grenades, in order to not end the game without ever using them. Video games seem like the perfect arena in which to do and apply this research.
- samplatt 5y ago
  In a lifetime of regret and missed opportunities, this is one area at least where I've learned my lesson. I can now go through a whole game and use all the "special" stuff that I'm given, and usually even at the appropriate times! Kinda proud. It sounds silly but it took a lot of letting go.
  - didsomeonesay 5y ago
    It's not silly, you found a dojo for practicing "letting go"! Hope your can transfer this to life. Will try your method if i ever find the appropriate time to play the "special" games on the steam backlog...
- bentcorner 5y ago
  RPG players do this all the time - they save those health and mana potions for a time they really need it, and invariably never do. Games that streamline these mechanics by making recovery items more fungible lose a little personality but are probably easier to balance.
  - yissp 5y ago
    And then it removes any challenge in the end-game when you can just drip-feed yourself from the huge pool of potions you've been hoarding.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I've identified this problem in my gameplay in roguelikes. It's hard to predict precisely what will be needed in later levels, so I find myself being quite a bit too conservative. I'd love to see research on this behavior.
  - toto444 5y ago
    Not a research on such behaviour but more an application to macroeconomics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op It illustrates : > the paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.
    - atq2119 5y ago
      This is the fallacy of composition applied to aggregate demand. That's important to know about, but what others were talking about is the psychology of individual choices. There isn't any aggregation or composition happening there as far as I can see.
  - jbarrs 5y ago
    It's got to a point where in games like Skyrim I generally just sell the majority of potions and whatnot, because I know when I get down to it I'll always be thinking there's a better time to use it. For whatever reason, I still can't let go mid-combat, but when selling it I have no issue.
aggie 5y ago
This is exactly the kind of weak external validity that has caused much of the replication crisis.
foerbert 5y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think the answer is actually more nuanced. At a minimum, it seems like a good way to run a cheap and quick way to try to validate an idea before dumping more time and money into it. If it seems like there is something there, then a longer and more expensive study is easier to justify. And when that study does happen, you'll already have data on what people expect to happen which is nice. It's not a perfect method for sifting through ideas, but at the end of the day you need some way of deciding what to pursue now, and without time travel there is no perfect method. And because methods are included in publications, from a scientific standpoint there's nothing wrong with publishing it. Other researchers will read the paper and clearly see what was tested and be able to assign an appropriate amount of significance. That significance may also vary through time. For example, somebody might conduct research about the accuracy of these imaginings in various ways. Maybe we find out we're actually quite good at them in some ways, and not so good in others. Maybe this is already done, and is why you've seen several recently? I don't know. The problems mainly come from the popsci aspect. (Some) Writers and (some of) the general public see 'scientific paper' and more or less base their own assessment of significant entirely on that. You can also get a bit of the 'telephone game' going on, and the significance can get all jacked up. I don't know how to solve this problem, but I don't think the correct solution is to alter the scientific process itself.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  > At a minimum, it seems like a good way to run a cheap and quick way to try to validate an idea before dumping more time and money into it. If it seems like there is something there, then a longer and more expensive study is easier to justify. And when that study does happen, you'll already have data on what people expect to happen which is nice. That seems quite reasonable. But lots of popular press coverage on "look what the scientists figured out" based on your initial validation justifying a longer and more expensive study... maybe less so. Like, if this really is understood as that... should pop press be covering it at all? This article definitely is written with teh tone "look what the scientists have learned about humans" not "they got enough validation to do more research", right? Hard to say what the researchers themselves think about the strength of what they found out, if they have your reasonableness about it. But the researchers are clearly happy to give interviews and be quoted; I mean, it's a lot to expect a researcher to give up good press, sure. > And because methods are included in publications, from a scientific standpoint there's nothing wrong with publishing it. Other researchers will read the paper and clearly see what was tested and be able to assign an appropriate amount of significance. I wish I had your generosity of spirit about contemporary practice and motivations of academic science.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
It's a form of operationalization and that's a valid critique. My hope would be that there are some studies on the validity of the technique. That being said, there's probably better ways. Additionally, I'd find it fun to riff on ways to make it better that have the same time/budget constraints as the original.
mc32 5y ago
Yeah: Imagine you had won the powerball lotto but decided not to cash it in. I can definitely "imagine" tossing it and burning it, etc. If it happened in real life, it would be very different.

verve_rat 5y ago

Seems like you could probably do some effective and efficient research using games. I always have to force myself to use the one shot super weapon, or even a few grenades, in order to not end the game without ever using them. Video games seem like the perfect arena in which to do and apply this research.

samplatt 5y ago
In a lifetime of regret and missed opportunities, this is one area at least where I've learned my lesson. I can now go through a whole game and use all the "special" stuff that I'm given, and usually even at the appropriate times! Kinda proud. It sounds silly but it took a lot of letting go.
- didsomeonesay 5y ago
  It's not silly, you found a dojo for practicing "letting go"! Hope your can transfer this to life. Will try your method if i ever find the appropriate time to play the "special" games on the steam backlog...
bentcorner 5y ago
RPG players do this all the time - they save those health and mana potions for a time they really need it, and invariably never do. Games that streamline these mechanics by making recovery items more fungible lose a little personality but are probably easier to balance.
- yissp 5y ago
  And then it removes any challenge in the end-game when you can just drip-feed yourself from the huge pool of potions you've been hoarding.
klyrs 5y ago
I've identified this problem in my gameplay in roguelikes. It's hard to predict precisely what will be needed in later levels, so I find myself being quite a bit too conservative. I'd love to see research on this behavior.
- toto444 5y ago
  Not a research on such behaviour but more an application to macroeconomics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op It illustrates : > the paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    This is the fallacy of composition applied to aggregate demand. That's important to know about, but what others were talking about is the psychology of individual choices. There isn't any aggregation or composition happening there as far as I can see.
- jbarrs 5y ago
  It's got to a point where in games like Skyrim I generally just sell the majority of potions and whatnot, because I know when I get down to it I'll always be thinking there's a better time to use it. For whatever reason, I still can't let go mid-combat, but when selling it I have no issue.

aggie 5y ago

This is exactly the kind of weak external validity that has caused much of the replication crisis.

foerbert 5y ago

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think the answer is actually more nuanced. At a minimum, it seems like a good way to run a cheap and quick way to try to validate an idea before dumping more time and money into it. If it seems like there is something there, then a longer and more expensive study is easier to justify. And when that study does happen, you'll already have data on what people expect to happen which is nice. It's not a perfect method for sifting through ideas, but at the end of the day you need some way of deciding what to pursue now, and without time travel there is no perfect method. And because methods are included in publications, from a scientific standpoint there's nothing wrong with publishing it. Other researchers will read the paper and clearly see what was tested and be able to assign an appropriate amount of significance. That significance may also vary through time. For example, somebody might conduct research about the accuracy of these imaginings in various ways. Maybe we find out we're actually quite good at them in some ways, and not so good in others. Maybe this is already done, and is why you've seen several recently? I don't know. The problems mainly come from the popsci aspect. (Some) Writers and (some of) the general public see 'scientific paper' and more or less base their own assessment of significant entirely on that. You can also get a bit of the 'telephone game' going on, and the significance can get all jacked up. I don't know how to solve this problem, but I don't think the correct solution is to alter the scientific process itself.

jrochkind1 5y ago
> At a minimum, it seems like a good way to run a cheap and quick way to try to validate an idea before dumping more time and money into it. If it seems like there is something there, then a longer and more expensive study is easier to justify. And when that study does happen, you'll already have data on what people expect to happen which is nice. That seems quite reasonable. But lots of popular press coverage on "look what the scientists figured out" based on your initial validation justifying a longer and more expensive study... maybe less so. Like, if this really is understood as that... should pop press be covering it at all? This article definitely is written with teh tone "look what the scientists have learned about humans" not "they got enough validation to do more research", right? Hard to say what the researchers themselves think about the strength of what they found out, if they have your reasonableness about it. But the researchers are clearly happy to give interviews and be quoted; I mean, it's a lot to expect a researcher to give up good press, sure. > And because methods are included in publications, from a scientific standpoint there's nothing wrong with publishing it. Other researchers will read the paper and clearly see what was tested and be able to assign an appropriate amount of significance. I wish I had your generosity of spirit about contemporary practice and motivations of academic science.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

It's a form of operationalization and that's a valid critique. My hope would be that there are some studies on the validity of the technique. That being said, there's probably better ways. Additionally, I'd find it fun to riff on ways to make it better that have the same time/budget constraints as the original.

mc32 5y ago

Yeah: Imagine you had won the powerball lotto but decided not to cash it in. I can definitely "imagine" tossing it and burning it, etc. If it happened in real life, it would be very different.