4 ms·

As someone said in an article about detecting bullshit science research, if such an effect were true, every day at noon tragedies and accidents would happen all

As someone said in an article about detecting bullshit science research, if such an effect were true, every day at noon tragedies and accidents would happen all over the world, and we would live in a different world where work close to lunch was illegal and so on, just like we forbid work under alcohol.

altvali 2y ago
Lead was added to gasoline since the 1920s. The first clinical studies that showed it was toxic were in 1969. The first country to ban it completely was Japan in 1986 and the last was Algeria in 2021. For more than a decade, people could have made a similar claim to yours, "if such an effect were true, we would have banned it already". And they would have been wrong, the effect was true.
- vitus 2y ago
  > The first clinical studies that showed it was toxic were in 1969. We knew it was dangerous within a year of it being introduced, even if we didn't publish widespread clinical studies before the 60s. Its creator, Thomas Midgley Jr, was diagnosed with lead poisoning multiple times. > Warnings about the toxicity of tetraethyllead came to Midgley from various sources. The letter of Erich Krause concerning its toxic effects, quoted in part in part 1,2 written on November 30, 1922, to George Calingaert (then at M.I.T.) was forwarded to Midgley in December 1922 by W. G. Whitman, Assistant Director of the M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Applied Chemistry. However, despite his own health problems and these early warnings, Midgley did not appear to be overly concerned about the health issues associated with the handling and use of tetraethyllead. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b There's also some discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Initial_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Initial_controv... suggesting that early studies may have been suppressed by the lead industry. > In the years that followed, research was heavily funded by the lead industry; in 1943, Randolph Byers found children with lead poisoning had behavior problems, but the Lead Industries Association threatened him with a lawsuit and the research ended.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  The effect of lead toxicity is not immediately and enormous so it is not remotely analogous.
  - porksoda 2y ago
    The effect of a grumpy person sending Bob to jail is also not immediate or enormous (unless you are bob or bob's family).
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      You've misunderstood. The effect is measurable immediately (guilty or not guilty) and the size of the effect (65% to 0%) is enormous.
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      Judges are not the only people who need to eat.
- dmurray 2y ago
  > Lead was added to gasoline since the 1920s...the last was Algeria in 2021. Right, so we figure these things out within 100 years or so at most. We've been dealing with hunger for millions of years, you'd expect there to be something in the Torah about how no man shall act as a judge before he's had lunch.
  - FergusArgyll 2y ago
    עַד מָתַי יוֹשְׁבִין בַּדִּין? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עַד זְמַן סְעוּדָה. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: מַאי קְרָא? — דִּכְתִיב: ״אִי לָךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁמַּלְכֵּךְ נָעַר וְשָׂרַיִךְ בַּבֹּקֶר יֹאכֵלוּ. אַשְׁרֵיךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁמַּלְכֵּךְ בֶּן חוֹרִים וְשָׂרַיִךְ בָּעֵת יֹאכֵלוּ בִּגְבוּרָה וְלֹא בַשְּׁתִי״. Until when do they sit in judgment? ? Rav Sheshet said: Until mealtime, noon. Rav Ḥama said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “Woe to you, land that your king is a lad and your ministers eat in the morning. Happy are you, land that your king is free and your ministers eat on time in strength and not in drunkenness” -Shabbos 10a
bowsamic 2y ago
> just like we forbid work under alcohol Do we? In many companies there is free infinite beer
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  In British parliament the most important people in the country get alcohol subsidised by the taxpayer. And they regularly find drugs in the bathroom. You’d think that if anyone, these people would have to be sober.
  - graemep 2y ago
    If you assume what MPs do is all that important. They mostly just do what their told by their party leadership anyway, and the rest of the time they are making decisions about things they know nothing about. Someone did a survey of how much MPs knew about economics and the results were dire, and they is something good many have been taught (all those PPE degrees!) and that is really important to them.
    - 4ndrewl 2y ago
      You're ignoring constituency work. Do you have a source for the "someone"?
      - graemep 2y ago
        Here is one about economics: https://positivemoney.org/archive/mp-poll/ https://positivemoney.org/archive/mp-poll/ Here is one about very simple stats: https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/general-news/new-rss-survey-tests-statistical-skills-of-mps/ https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/g...
    - switch007 2y ago
      They do important work for their constituents. Let's not insinuate MPs are irrelevant Would you rather they were dispensed with and instead we have a dictatorship?
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> and accidents would happen all over the world, and we would live in a different world where work close to lunch was illegal and so on, Not at all, as a society ee are really good at ignoring terrible consequences of our decisions and carrying on regardless, sometimes for no reason other than habit. We force children to go to school early despite mountains of evidence that this harms their learning, we give antibiotics to healthy livestock despite absolute proof that this causes antibiotic resistance, you can probably add more to this list, I.e climate change, etc.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dist-epoch 2y ago
  Nassim Taleb has a theory that the primary purpose of school is not to educate children, but to keep them from roaming the streets and causing mayhem. Learning is a side-effect.
  - f1shy 2y ago
    I did not know that. But I was told primary school is not only to teach the basics, but also (and even more important) to start forming social individuals to form a society. That is one of the reasons primary school is (typically) compulsory, presencial, and the based in groups that grow together for some years. Also is part of the primary school teaching respect for the Flag, the history and heros, anthem, etc. also patriotic holidays, like independence day, imply special works for the kids, actuation and what not. They have to learn to live their country.
    - brabel 2y ago
      That's all true, but let's not forget the actual reason for children starting school very early in the morning is basically so that their parents can drop them at school and go to work.
    - kwhitefoot 2y ago
      > to start forming social individuals to form a society. That's the explicit purpose of barnehage (from one to five years old) in Scandinavia, specifically Norway. That's preschool or kindergarten in other countries but without any academic instruction at all. Every child is guaranteed a place and the cost is strictly limited. > Also is part of the primary school teaching respect for the Flag, the history and heros, anthem, etc. also patriotic holidays, like independence day, We don't have that. I suppose that Constitution Day (17th May) has some slight similarity with American Independence Day. The barnehage children will walk in the procession waving flags but it's not really the same. Of course part of the reason that hero worship isn't inculcated in barnehage in Norway is probably because every Norwegian has an unshakeable belief in the greatness of Norwegians (especially in regard to skiing championships against the Swedes) so it is unnecessary. I exaggerate of course, but slightly. :-)
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
mjburgess 2y ago
It's funny that no one's understanding your claim. The effect size claimed for the original paper, as well as how obvious and localised the effect is, would make it incredibly obvious to observe. Thus if this effect were true, we would have to explain how we've all missed it. This is not comparable to long-term effects, or ones otherwise difficult to notice, etc. We notice the effects of alcohol immediately, and here, it's claimed being hungry-for-lunch is at least as large, if not larger, effect. This seems obvious nonsense. If any other statistical model can explain the same effect, it's vastly more likely, since it benefits from not making a miracle out of our missing the lethality of mild lunchtime hunger.

altvali 2y ago

Lead was added to gasoline since the 1920s. The first clinical studies that showed it was toxic were in 1969. The first country to ban it completely was Japan in 1986 and the last was Algeria in 2021. For more than a decade, people could have made a similar claim to yours, "if such an effect were true, we would have banned it already". And they would have been wrong, the effect was true.

vitus 2y ago
> The first clinical studies that showed it was toxic were in 1969. We knew it was dangerous within a year of it being introduced, even if we didn't publish widespread clinical studies before the 60s. Its creator, Thomas Midgley Jr, was diagnosed with lead poisoning multiple times. > Warnings about the toxicity of tetraethyllead came to Midgley from various sources. The letter of Erich Krause concerning its toxic effects, quoted in part in part 1,2 written on November 30, 1922, to George Calingaert (then at M.I.T.) was forwarded to Midgley in December 1922 by W. G. Whitman, Assistant Director of the M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Applied Chemistry. However, despite his own health problems and these early warnings, Midgley did not appear to be overly concerned about the health issues associated with the handling and use of tetraethyllead. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b There's also some discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Initial_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Initial_controv... suggesting that early studies may have been suppressed by the lead industry. > In the years that followed, research was heavily funded by the lead industry; in 1943, Randolph Byers found children with lead poisoning had behavior problems, but the Lead Industries Association threatened him with a lawsuit and the research ended.
IshKebab 2y ago
The effect of lead toxicity is not immediately and enormous so it is not remotely analogous.
- porksoda 2y ago
  The effect of a grumpy person sending Bob to jail is also not immediate or enormous (unless you are bob or bob's family).
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    You've misunderstood. The effect is measurable immediately (guilty or not guilty) and the size of the effect (65% to 0%) is enormous.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    Judges are not the only people who need to eat.
dmurray 2y ago
> Lead was added to gasoline since the 1920s...the last was Algeria in 2021. Right, so we figure these things out within 100 years or so at most. We've been dealing with hunger for millions of years, you'd expect there to be something in the Torah about how no man shall act as a judge before he's had lunch.
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
  עַד מָתַי יוֹשְׁבִין בַּדִּין? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עַד זְמַן סְעוּדָה. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: מַאי קְרָא? — דִּכְתִיב: ״אִי לָךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁמַּלְכֵּךְ נָעַר וְשָׂרַיִךְ בַּבֹּקֶר יֹאכֵלוּ. אַשְׁרֵיךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁמַּלְכֵּךְ בֶּן חוֹרִים וְשָׂרַיִךְ בָּעֵת יֹאכֵלוּ בִּגְבוּרָה וְלֹא בַשְּׁתִי״. Until when do they sit in judgment? ? Rav Sheshet said: Until mealtime, noon. Rav Ḥama said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “Woe to you, land that your king is a lad and your ministers eat in the morning. Happy are you, land that your king is free and your ministers eat on time in strength and not in drunkenness” -Shabbos 10a

bowsamic 2y ago

> just like we forbid work under alcohol Do we? In many companies there is free infinite beer

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
In British parliament the most important people in the country get alcohol subsidised by the taxpayer. And they regularly find drugs in the bathroom. You’d think that if anyone, these people would have to be sober.
- graemep 2y ago
  If you assume what MPs do is all that important. They mostly just do what their told by their party leadership anyway, and the rest of the time they are making decisions about things they know nothing about. Someone did a survey of how much MPs knew about economics and the results were dire, and they is something good many have been taught (all those PPE degrees!) and that is really important to them.
  - 4ndrewl 2y ago
    You're ignoring constituency work. Do you have a source for the "someone"?
    - graemep 2y ago
      Here is one about economics: https://positivemoney.org/archive/mp-poll/ https://positivemoney.org/archive/mp-poll/ Here is one about very simple stats: https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/general-news/new-rss-survey-tests-statistical-skills-of-mps/ https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/g...
  - switch007 2y ago
    They do important work for their constituents. Let's not insinuate MPs are irrelevant Would you rather they were dispensed with and instead we have a dictatorship?

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> and accidents would happen all over the world, and we would live in a different world where work close to lunch was illegal and so on, Not at all, as a society ee are really good at ignoring terrible consequences of our decisions and carrying on regardless, sometimes for no reason other than habit. We force children to go to school early despite mountains of evidence that this harms their learning, we give antibiotics to healthy livestock despite absolute proof that this causes antibiotic resistance, you can probably add more to this list, I.e climate change, etc.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dist-epoch 2y ago
Nassim Taleb has a theory that the primary purpose of school is not to educate children, but to keep them from roaming the streets and causing mayhem. Learning is a side-effect.
- f1shy 2y ago
  I did not know that. But I was told primary school is not only to teach the basics, but also (and even more important) to start forming social individuals to form a society. That is one of the reasons primary school is (typically) compulsory, presencial, and the based in groups that grow together for some years. Also is part of the primary school teaching respect for the Flag, the history and heros, anthem, etc. also patriotic holidays, like independence day, imply special works for the kids, actuation and what not. They have to learn to live their country.
  - brabel 2y ago
    That's all true, but let's not forget the actual reason for children starting school very early in the morning is basically so that their parents can drop them at school and go to work.
  - kwhitefoot 2y ago
    > to start forming social individuals to form a society. That's the explicit purpose of barnehage (from one to five years old) in Scandinavia, specifically Norway. That's preschool or kindergarten in other countries but without any academic instruction at all. Every child is guaranteed a place and the cost is strictly limited. > Also is part of the primary school teaching respect for the Flag, the history and heros, anthem, etc. also patriotic holidays, like independence day, We don't have that. I suppose that Constitution Day (17th May) has some slight similarity with American Independence Day. The barnehage children will walk in the procession waving flags but it's not really the same. Of course part of the reason that hero worship isn't inculcated in barnehage in Norway is probably because every Norwegian has an unshakeable belief in the greatness of Norwegians (especially in regard to skiing championships against the Swedes) so it is unnecessary. I exaggerate of course, but slightly. :-)

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

mjburgess 2y ago

It's funny that no one's understanding your claim. The effect size claimed for the original paper, as well as how obvious and localised the effect is, would make it incredibly obvious to observe. Thus if this effect were true, we would have to explain how we've all missed it. This is not comparable to long-term effects, or ones otherwise difficult to notice, etc. We notice the effects of alcohol immediately, and here, it's claimed being hungry-for-lunch is at least as large, if not larger, effect. This seems obvious nonsense. If any other statistical model can explain the same effect, it's vastly more likely, since it benefits from not making a miracle out of our missing the lethality of mild lunchtime hunger.