6 ms·
> For example, what you eat is shaped far more by what you see than by what you search for. The linked study is co-authored by the disgraced researcher/fraudst
by medler 3y ago
> For example, what you eat is shaped far more by what you see than by what you search for.
The linked study is co-authored by the disgraced researcher/fraudster Brian Wansink. I guess this was one of the studies that didn’t get retracted, but I still wouldn’t put a lot of faith in anything with his name on it.
- gtirloni 3y agoDo you have an objection to the claims though?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- medler 3y agoDigging into the study now. It was very small: the subjects were 16 office workers. They analyzed between-subjects rather than within-subjects, which seems a little suspicious given that within-subjects is more interesting and given Wansink’s history of p hacking. Finally, the results comparing visible vs non-visible food (the part alluded to in the HBR article when it says “seeing is eating”) had a p-value of 0.03, so they barely reached significance. My gut says this study is not likely to replicate.
- gtirloni 3y agoThat's interesting, thanks for taking the time to investigate this further (I lack the knowledge about this field and the statistical methods and it was an honest question).
- _the_inflator 3y agoIndirectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink#Cornell's_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink#Cornell's_invest...
- toss1 3y agoGood to point out a flaw But is that a nit that changes nothing (e.g., there is significant other valid evidence that supports the same point) and so could be simply updated, or is it the linchpin of the entire argument, without which the entire premise and argument fails? If it is the latter, it's good to draw our attention to it, but if the former, then this is kind of a meaningless distraction. I haven't got the time ATM to sort it out. Perhaps someone with knowledge could add the needed insight?
- medler 3y agoBy no means does this little nit invalidate the entire article. But since this article is a grab-bag of separate points, we can only critique point by point. I do think the bad cite weakens this one point—if there were better studies in support of this point, why didn’t the author cite them instead? And since there’s no reliable evidentiary backing for this point, you have to go by whether it feels right to you. Which is fine! That’s how most advice works. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that “studies say” this point is right without further evidence.
- ZunarJ5 3y agoI saw "change your friends" and noped out. Toxic mindset. That is a key to isolation and an unhealthy, sad life. Makes him sound like a LinkedIn nutter.
- patrick451 3y agoIf you are meth addict it would be unbelievably naive to think remaining friends with and hanging out with other meth addicts would do anything but hurt your quest to stop smoking meth. Better to be friendless than hooked on meth.
- pgayed 3y ago“Friends”: a group of people who reinforce among themselves a particular worldview and the permissible behaviors that go with it
- deepfriedchokes 3y agoHow is changing friends a toxic mindset? Changing friends means new friends, not no friends. There is a reason they say you can judge a person by the company they keep.
- rc5150 3y agoRight but it solidifies a mindset that boils down to “instead of working to communicate with someone about a trait I deem problematic, it’s easier to simply replace that friend with someone else.”
- _the_inflator 3y agoThank you for this hint.