4 ms·

They obviously didn't, and didn't need to - that sentence is not making any assertion, it is suggesting a hypothesis that can be tested in future work by them o

They obviously didn't, and didn't need to - that sentence is not making any assertion, it is suggesting a hypothesis that can be tested in future work by them or others. The sole assertion this study is making is about the existence of the effect, and it is only speculating (and not hiding that it's speculating) about a possible mechanism causing that effect. And obviously further details relating to this observation aren't already tested and published, it would take at least a few months for that to happen - if someone had already done and published a follow-up analysis, this article wouldn't be news but be outdated already.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I agree that that sentence didn't, but further down in the article stronger claims are made, sometimes obliquely referencing prior work. So it would be interesting to see the original paper to see what they cite as supporting evidence for this hypothesis. Obviously this is something that can be controlled somewhat with the appropriate selection of subjects (there are a variety of families that have experienced generational rags-to-riches or riches-to-rags, for example). Though the N in those cases is likely to be smaller.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  I think a problem is that this press release is mixing content from the scientific study with an interview of experts talking about it, and the colloquial assertions made in that conversation happen to have a bunch of extra speculation that isn't part of the study they discuss; for half of the press release the "standard of evidence" is like in science and for the other half it is like in this HN discussion thread, where people do rise many interesting (and possibly true) hypotheses where we don't have any evidence (yet).
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I agree.
itronitron 3y ago
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, say no more, say no more!
roenxi 3y ago
And, indeed, makes for some rather interesting follow up questions... * Is this genuinely just a different way of processing rewards? * Do low SES children not understand that money is a reward? * Is there a capability gap at playing games? Or different responses to games themselves? I don't think it makes intuitive sense that limited rewards leads to a lower response, so my guess is low SES children probably have a different relationship with money. My observation has been, in a weird but important way, that only a subset of high SES families seem to treat money as a desirable thing. Most people seem to have a what I see as a complex love-hate-contempt relationship with money. There isn't conclusive evidence in the article though.
- hmcq6 3y ago
  "* Do low SES children not understand that money is a reward?" As in they're stupid? How would they not understand it's a reward. "* Is there a capability gap at playing games? Or different responses to games themselves?" From the article - "Unbeknownst to the participants, the game was set up to control whether the guess would be correct or incorrect." So no... that's not a possibility
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > As in they're stupid? How would they not understand it's a reward. A lot of people, if you give them a dollar they'll try to spend it on something. And that, counterintuitively, means they don't see the dollar as a reward. Someone who sees the dollar as a reward will put the dollar on their pile of dollars and then feel good because they have a dollar. The dollar, in itself, is the reward. If someone is dirt poor, I assume they don't have a habit of seeing money as the end in itself.
    - hmcq6 3y ago
      "A lot of people, if you give them a dollar they'll try to spend it on something. And that, counterintuitively, means they don't see the dollar as a reward." I think Homer already deconstructed your argument, no not that Homer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81DYZh6KaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81DYZh6KaQ But the question is, how can you attribute that behavior to the poor kids only if there is no mention of it in the study or article? Undoubtably some number of both the poor and rich kids are going to want to buy something with the money. Buried in your assumption is the assumption that poor kids are less likely to try to save money or that they don't see financial stability as rewarding. And, in my opinion, the fact that the reward center of all the kids brains lit up fundamentally contradicts your central point. The poor kids did see the money as a reward for correctly guessing the answer in the game.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

I agree that that sentence didn't, but further down in the article stronger claims are made, sometimes obliquely referencing prior work. So it would be interesting to see the original paper to see what they cite as supporting evidence for this hypothesis. Obviously this is something that can be controlled somewhat with the appropriate selection of subjects (there are a variety of families that have experienced generational rags-to-riches or riches-to-rags, for example). Though the N in those cases is likely to be smaller.

PeterisP 3y ago
I think a problem is that this press release is mixing content from the scientific study with an interview of experts talking about it, and the colloquial assertions made in that conversation happen to have a bunch of extra speculation that isn't part of the study they discuss; for half of the press release the "standard of evidence" is like in science and for the other half it is like in this HN discussion thread, where people do rise many interesting (and possibly true) hypotheses where we don't have any evidence (yet).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I agree.

itronitron 3y ago

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, say no more, say no more!

roenxi 3y ago

And, indeed, makes for some rather interesting follow up questions... * Is this genuinely just a different way of processing rewards? * Do low SES children not understand that money is a reward? * Is there a capability gap at playing games? Or different responses to games themselves? I don't think it makes intuitive sense that limited rewards leads to a lower response, so my guess is low SES children probably have a different relationship with money. My observation has been, in a weird but important way, that only a subset of high SES families seem to treat money as a desirable thing. Most people seem to have a what I see as a complex love-hate-contempt relationship with money. There isn't conclusive evidence in the article though.

hmcq6 3y ago
"* Do low SES children not understand that money is a reward?" As in they're stupid? How would they not understand it's a reward. "* Is there a capability gap at playing games? Or different responses to games themselves?" From the article - "Unbeknownst to the participants, the game was set up to control whether the guess would be correct or incorrect." So no... that's not a possibility
- roenxi 3y ago
  > As in they're stupid? How would they not understand it's a reward. A lot of people, if you give them a dollar they'll try to spend it on something. And that, counterintuitively, means they don't see the dollar as a reward. Someone who sees the dollar as a reward will put the dollar on their pile of dollars and then feel good because they have a dollar. The dollar, in itself, is the reward. If someone is dirt poor, I assume they don't have a habit of seeing money as the end in itself.
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    "A lot of people, if you give them a dollar they'll try to spend it on something. And that, counterintuitively, means they don't see the dollar as a reward." I think Homer already deconstructed your argument, no not that Homer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81DYZh6KaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81DYZh6KaQ But the question is, how can you attribute that behavior to the poor kids only if there is no mention of it in the study or article? Undoubtably some number of both the poor and rich kids are going to want to buy something with the money. Buried in your assumption is the assumption that poor kids are less likely to try to save money or that they don't see financial stability as rewarding. And, in my opinion, the fact that the reward center of all the kids brains lit up fundamentally contradicts your central point. The poor kids did see the money as a reward for correctly guessing the answer in the game.