5 ms·

This day and age if a social/psych “paper” defies common sense it should just be ignored. Pushing these “findings” as science should be considered malpractice.

tylervigen 2y ago
Why does this paper defy common sense?
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  That the effect is so large should draw a lot of suspicion. Real psychological effects almost never have that magnitude. The claim that heavily vetted, highly educated judges are reliably just throwing out punishments willy-nilly because they want a snack is also quite suspect, especially as there is no reason to expect this to only work in one direction- why wouldn't they be just as willing to let people off easy when that gets them to lunch just as quickly?
  - valicord 2y ago
    > just throwing out punishments willy-nilly because they want a snack That's not the claim. https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/science-behind-being-hangry-ncna887806 https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/science-behind-be...
    - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
      It is true that being hungry makes you irritable. But that irritability is a component of wanting a snack, and the claim is that the feeling of wanting a snack was responsible for a judge denying parole across the board to all candidates, among whom ostensibly 67% deserved parole. I assume we've both felt hungry for too long. I do feel annoyed and frustrated, maybe I make a rude remark or snap at someone. It is not my belief that it is a feeling powerful enough to make me carry out a massive miscarriage of justice and ruin people's lives for years to come. And I expect judges typically have more willpower than me.
      - watwut 2y ago
        I have seen people be unfair when hangry. And expecting judges to be fundamentally different people then rest of us is irrational. That job attracts people who like to have power. That is about what is special about them.
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Judges have made it through law school and typically are selected for their ability to make fair decisions according to the law. I lacked the willpower to survive a year of undergrad, but I have no trouble holding back my temper when others' wellbeing is on the line. It stands to reason that either I am a different kind of person than the rest of you, or that the average judge is better at this than me. I don't know that judges are fundamentally power-seeking (I expect someone who has a judges credentials and wants power would rather be a prosecutor), but assuming so, I'm not sure I should expect someone who seeks power to be more beholden to their emotions than average.
HWR_14 2y ago
Hungry people are cranky, and cranky people are less fair to others, are both only common sense.
brianleb 2y ago
Perhaps, but the original paper (harsher sentences before lunch) does not defy "common sense." Common sense tells people that when they are hungry, they are irritable. Many people are familiar with the concept of feeling "hangry." See https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-being-hangry-really-a-thing-or-just-an-excuse https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-being-hangry-really-a-...
- encoderer 2y ago
  Sure that’s why it’s plausible but it defies common sense to assume that judges are not managing their own hunger to the extent that it’s affecting their job performance. Why wouldn’t surgeons or pilots have the same problem? The paper is sensational because of the implications it has for the social justice causes certain people are obsessed about.
  - epylar 2y ago
    Who says surgeons or pilots don't have the same problem?
    - encoderer 2y ago
      The Null Hypothesis.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    I don't think this is totally unreasonable, nor unique to judges. For example, the developed world rolled out school lunch programs as a way to improve academic performance, which at the time of implementation was controversial.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Skipping lunch is bad for school performance, but judges aren't skipping lunch. Judges eat their lunch at a regular scheduled time and so they can naturally adjust their eating habits to get them through the day without experiencing discomforting hunger.
LordKeren 2y ago
I think that’s a little far — mainly the point where science itself is often a rejection of things that were previously called “common sense”. But this can also be expanded. There are no fields of science where a singular paper should be widely accepted before replication and additional studies. Social sciences have a noticeable issue where they lend themselves to dramatic headlines and over extrapolation I suspect that this is largely an aspect of them being much more understandable and ultimately relatable than some of the more niche fields where papers address nearly unapproachable topics
- rocqua 2y ago
  > There are no fields of science where a singular paper should be widely accepted before replication and additional studies. Certainly within mathematics, this isn't a requirement, and I think the same holds within some branches of theoretical physics, as well as computing science. I suppose there's a decent argument to be made that these things aren't "Science". Certainly, mathematics uses something different from the empirical method to progress knowledge. But there isn't really a good alternative word.
mvkel 2y ago
Judging yesterday's findings with today's information is never fair. Should Galileo be punished for malpractice because he thought tides were related to the sun?
0134340 2y ago
Blood sugar affects mood. A person's decision-making can be affected by mood. Judges make decisions. Seems pretty common sense to me. It may not change guilty/not-guilty verdicts but it's easy to believe that perhaps it would affect milder differences.
- nyokodo 2y ago
  > Seems pretty common sense to me. It’s also seems like it’d be commonsense for judges to know that and have meal and snack strategies to account for it. To determine what the real effect is then you need to establish it empirically and they haven’t.
  - Flop7331 2y ago
    If judgery is like any other field, they're overbooked and burnt out. I imagine it's like medicine. In other words, there is no room for a meal strategy.

tylervigen 2y ago

Why does this paper defy common sense?

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
That the effect is so large should draw a lot of suspicion. Real psychological effects almost never have that magnitude. The claim that heavily vetted, highly educated judges are reliably just throwing out punishments willy-nilly because they want a snack is also quite suspect, especially as there is no reason to expect this to only work in one direction- why wouldn't they be just as willing to let people off easy when that gets them to lunch just as quickly?
- valicord 2y ago
  > just throwing out punishments willy-nilly because they want a snack That's not the claim. https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/science-behind-being-hangry-ncna887806 https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/science-behind-be...
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    It is true that being hungry makes you irritable. But that irritability is a component of wanting a snack, and the claim is that the feeling of wanting a snack was responsible for a judge denying parole across the board to all candidates, among whom ostensibly 67% deserved parole. I assume we've both felt hungry for too long. I do feel annoyed and frustrated, maybe I make a rude remark or snap at someone. It is not my belief that it is a feeling powerful enough to make me carry out a massive miscarriage of justice and ruin people's lives for years to come. And I expect judges typically have more willpower than me.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I have seen people be unfair when hangry. And expecting judges to be fundamentally different people then rest of us is irrational. That job attracts people who like to have power. That is about what is special about them.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Judges have made it through law school and typically are selected for their ability to make fair decisions according to the law. I lacked the willpower to survive a year of undergrad, but I have no trouble holding back my temper when others' wellbeing is on the line. It stands to reason that either I am a different kind of person than the rest of you, or that the average judge is better at this than me. I don't know that judges are fundamentally power-seeking (I expect someone who has a judges credentials and wants power would rather be a prosecutor), but assuming so, I'm not sure I should expect someone who seeks power to be more beholden to their emotions than average.

HWR_14 2y ago

Hungry people are cranky, and cranky people are less fair to others, are both only common sense.

brianleb 2y ago

Perhaps, but the original paper (harsher sentences before lunch) does not defy "common sense." Common sense tells people that when they are hungry, they are irritable. Many people are familiar with the concept of feeling "hangry." See https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-being-hangry-really-a-thing-or-just-an-excuse https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-being-hangry-really-a-...

encoderer 2y ago
Sure that’s why it’s plausible but it defies common sense to assume that judges are not managing their own hunger to the extent that it’s affecting their job performance. Why wouldn’t surgeons or pilots have the same problem? The paper is sensational because of the implications it has for the social justice causes certain people are obsessed about.
- epylar 2y ago
  Who says surgeons or pilots don't have the same problem?
  - encoderer 2y ago
    The Null Hypothesis.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  I don't think this is totally unreasonable, nor unique to judges. For example, the developed world rolled out school lunch programs as a way to improve academic performance, which at the time of implementation was controversial.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Skipping lunch is bad for school performance, but judges aren't skipping lunch. Judges eat their lunch at a regular scheduled time and so they can naturally adjust their eating habits to get them through the day without experiencing discomforting hunger.

LordKeren 2y ago

I think that’s a little far — mainly the point where science itself is often a rejection of things that were previously called “common sense”. But this can also be expanded. There are no fields of science where a singular paper should be widely accepted before replication and additional studies. Social sciences have a noticeable issue where they lend themselves to dramatic headlines and over extrapolation I suspect that this is largely an aspect of them being much more understandable and ultimately relatable than some of the more niche fields where papers address nearly unapproachable topics

rocqua 2y ago
> There are no fields of science where a singular paper should be widely accepted before replication and additional studies. Certainly within mathematics, this isn't a requirement, and I think the same holds within some branches of theoretical physics, as well as computing science. I suppose there's a decent argument to be made that these things aren't "Science". Certainly, mathematics uses something different from the empirical method to progress knowledge. But there isn't really a good alternative word.

mvkel 2y ago

Judging yesterday's findings with today's information is never fair. Should Galileo be punished for malpractice because he thought tides were related to the sun?

0134340 2y ago

Blood sugar affects mood. A person's decision-making can be affected by mood. Judges make decisions. Seems pretty common sense to me. It may not change guilty/not-guilty verdicts but it's easy to believe that perhaps it would affect milder differences.

nyokodo 2y ago
> Seems pretty common sense to me. It’s also seems like it’d be commonsense for judges to know that and have meal and snack strategies to account for it. To determine what the real effect is then you need to establish it empirically and they haven’t.
- Flop7331 2y ago
  If judgery is like any other field, they're overbooked and burnt out. I imagine it's like medicine. In other words, there is no room for a meal strategy.