7 ms·
Critique of Freakonomics interview with psychologist Ellen Langer
- donogh 2y agoI appreciate this is intellectually lazy but is there a tl;dr? It’s a clickbait headline followed by a conversation that’s, at least initially, not good at conveying context.
- wslh 2y ago[flagged]
- posterman 2y agonot only is it intellectually lazy, its just plain lazy. this is hackernews, surely you've heard of artificial intelligence?
- 8note 2y agoThe tl;dr You should be skeptical of surprising results, and see to disconfirm them rather than accepting and repeating them at face value
- gs17 2y agoThey had a guest on who has a history of surprising results published from studies with flaws in methodology (although the author of the post is clearly a little biased). The complaint is about the podcast not being very critical of her, while framing the discussion with the question “How do you know whether you should believe surprising results?”.
- civilian 2y agoI mean, they were right to be fans of Sulfur dioxide injection into the atmosphere. And so far ahead of their time!
- dang 2y agoRecent and (coincidentally) related: The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action (1978) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947985 - Oct 2024 (7 comments)
- mjb 2y agoThese problems in popular science communication seem to come down to a disconnect between what gets audiences excited (unexpected results! surprising data!) and what the process of science actually looks like (you need to take extra care with unexpected results and surprising data). The process of doing good science and the process of getting audiences excited about new science seem to be fundamentally at odds. This isn't new - the challenges where the same when I was reading Scientific American as a kid 30 years ago. It's tough, because communicating science in all it's depth and uncertainty is tough. You want to communicate the beauty and excitement, but don't want to mislead people, and the balance there just seems super hard to find.
- nyrikki 2y agoNit: It goes a bit deeper than that. Note this talk by another Pop Sci personality Robert Sapolsky, where he talks about the limitations of western reductionism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo Yet his latest book on free will exclusively depended on an reductionist viewpoint. While I don't know his motivations for those changes, the fact that the paper he mentioned was so extremely unpopular that I was only one of a handful that read it surely provided some incentive: > "REDUCTIONISM AND VARIABILITY IN DATA: A META-ANALYSIS ROBERT SAPOLSKY and STEVEN BALT" Or you can go back to math and look at the Brouwer–Hilbert controversy, which was purely about if we should, universally, accept PEM a priori, which Church, Post, Gödel, and others proved wasn't a safe in many problems. Luckily ZFC helped with some of that, but Hilbert won that war of of words. Where even suggesting a constructivist approach produces so much cognitive dissonance that it is often branded as heresy. Fortunately with the Curry–Howard–Lambek correspondence you can shift to types or categories with someone who understands them to avoid that land mine, but even on here people get frustrated when people say something is 'undecidable' and then go silent. It is not that labeling it as 'undecidable' wins an argument, but that it is so painful to move on because from Plato onward PEM was part of the trinity of thought that is sacrosanct. To be clear, I am not a strict constructivist, but view this as horses for courses, with the reductionist view being insanely useful for many needs. If you look at the link that jeffbee the mention of "garden of forking paths" is a way of stepping on egg shells around the above. https://stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/healing.pdf https://stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/heali... Overfitting and underfitting are often explained as symptoms of the bias-variance trade-off, and even with PHDs it is hard to invoke indecomposablity, decidability, or non-triviality; all of which should be easy to explain as when PEM doesn't hold for some reason. While mistaking the map for the territory is an easy way for the Freakonomics authors to make a living, it can be viewed as an unfortunate outcome due to the assumption of PEM and abuse of the principle of sufficient reason. While there are most certainly other approaches, and obviously not everything can be proven or even found with the constructivist approach, whenever something is found that is surprising, there should be an attempt to not accept PEM before making a claim that something is not just epistemically possible but epistemically necessary. To me this is just checking your assumptions, obviously the staunchly anti-constructivist viewpoint has members that are far smarter and knowledgeable then I will ever be. IMHO for profit or donation based Pop science will always look for the man bites dog stories... I do agree that sharing the beauty while avoiding misleading is challenging and important. But the false premise that you either do or do not accept constructive mathematics also blocks the ease in which you could show that these type of farcical claims the authors make are false. That simply doesn't exist today where the many worlds ideas are popular in the press, but pointing out that many efforts appear to be an attempt to maintain the illusion of Laplacian determinism, which we know has counterexamples, is so counter to the Platonic zeitgeist that most people bite their tongues when they should be providing counterexamples to help find a better theory. I know that the true believers in any camp help drive things forward, and they need to be encouraged too. But the point is that there is a real deeper problem that is helping drive this particular communication problem and something needs to change so that we can move forward with the majority of individuals having larger toolboxes vs dogmatic schools of thought. </rant>
- jedberg 2y agoIn a quick skim, I couldn't actually find the complaint. The freakonomics guys have been proven wrong before, and update their texts when they can to reflect those things. I'm sure if some contrary evidence were presented to them, they would gladly consider it, and maybe even have this person on their podcast to refute it!
- idle_zealot 2y agoThe complaint is that they're consistently irresponsibly gullible.
- randomdata 2y agoThe complaint seems to be that Freaknomics and related Podcasts, which are created for the sake of entertainment, are not the peer-reviewed journals he wishes they were.
- cholantesh 2y agoThis is an utter cop-out that is a hair's length away from "this interviewer was combative and biased". In fact, it is entirely possible to thread the needle of being engaging without also being a total rube.
- randomdata 2y agoIt’s not a cop-out to complain, but one has to remember that complaints only mean so much. McDonald’s isn’t becoming a Michelin Star restaurant because you complain its food isn’t fancy enough either. It not like there can only be one Podcast. If you see that the world is missing something, create it! Nobody else is going to do it. If they would, you already wouldn’t have found it lacking.
- cholantesh 2y agoThe cop-out in question is not the complaint but the rote and glib response that a podcast isn't an academic venue. The two things are not at cross purposes, and quite a lot of popular media, including outlets in which Gelman has relayed his concerns about Langer, where the goal is quite specifically to critique dubious claims. And even otherwise, people form their view of the world based on the media they consume. Levitt knows this and leverages this, along with being an academic, to boost his platform, which in turn is used to boost the profile of his guests. The argument that he bears no responsibility at all for what and how he presents to his audience is dubious. >It not like there can only be one Podcast. If you see that the world is missing something, create it! Nobody else is going to do it. If they would, you already wouldn’t have found it lacking. I would have thought the past decade would have put this marketplace of ideas hokum to rest, but here we are.
- treefarmer 2y agoFor those interested in hearing more about the criticism behind Freakonomics, there is an If Books Could Kill podcast episode going over it: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wHpooGMRsSBrUHhQZbOZp https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wHpooGMRsSBrUHhQZbOZp I don't agree with all of their criticism but it contains many valid points
- throwawaythekey 2y agoFunny podcast in general and great if you are looking for one that is highly critical of whatever book they are reviewing.
- dang 2y agoCan anyone suggest a good [1] title that is more specific? I've taken a crack at it above but it seems lame. A specific title is important because otherwise specific discussion (i.e. about what's different in this article) is preferable to generic discussion. We get plenty of the latter in any case, but it's best if it doesn't dominate the thread. [1] in this context 'good' := accurate, neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article
- 8note 2y agoA quote of the article quoting the interview: "How do you know whether you should believe surprising [scientific] results?" The article comes back around to that question a couple of times, in trying to describe that Levitt should not trust Langur's results because either there's not enough evidence, or the evidence doesn't support the conclusion
- dang 2y agoIt's a good quote but too generic for the title of this thread.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoUsing a quote from the article: > If the findings consistently surprise you, and they seriously challenge the beliefs of mainstream science, then maybe you should more seriously consider the possibility that these findings are wrong! It seems that "You should seriously consider surprising findings" could be a good title. Maybe "results" instead of "findings" but the article doesn't actually use that word outside quotes. It's more or less the conclusion of the critique that's mentioned in the current title.
- PaulHoule 2y agoContrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is the ultimate bad smell in my book but it sure will get you on Rogan’s show.
- jeffbee 2y agoPandering to the over-estimated intelligence of contrarians is the problem. People who self-describe as contrarians, independents, or skeptics are consistently associated with lower education, lower information, and lower analytical skills than others without these self descriptions. This extends to politics where people who say they are moderates or independents also have these markers of lower information compared to people who will describe themselves as having a position, no matter what side that position is on. But in popular communications we have for some reason decided to exalt and praise the skeptic and the independent.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago> Pandering to the over-estimated intelligence of contrarians is the problem. It makes them feel smart. Which I'm sure feel's good, but often the signal takes precedence over being correct which leads to the obvious issues. It's the same mechanism that makes conspiracy theories so appealing to another group of people - knowing how things really work is seductive. HN has it's own form that if you've been around long enough, I'm sure you can identify too.
- mvdtnz 2y agoYeah I'm going to need to see some citations for these claims.
- jmpetroske 2y ago> People who self-describe as contrarians, independents, or skeptics are consistently associated with lower education, lower information, and lower analytical skills than others without these self descriptions. This is an awfully large claim to make without any backing research. Some quick googling hasn't led me to anything backing this up, but I would be curious to read anything that says so.
- mbowcut2 2y agoI understand the complaints, but I don't think the Freakonomics podcast should necessarily be expected to meet the high standard of peer review. Is it really that bad for Levitt to take published research at face value, trusting that gatekeepers upriver have done their due diligence?
- chickenpotpie 2y agoWhat is the value in listening to an educational podcast if I cannot be certain that the material is factual?
- Dylan16807 2y agoCertainty is too high of a bar.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoWhat use is the value of reading a journal if I cannot be certain that the material is reliably peer reviewed? I'm not sure why the podcast author is being held to a standard that should be levied to other matter experts, that come way before he ever reaches out for an interview.
- mbowcut2 2y agoThis is my main point. Seems like gripes about the quality of published research should be directed toward the publisher.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoIt is factual that Langer performed a study in which X was done, Y was measured and Z was concluded. What is less clear is whether X was good experimental design, whether the measurements of Y were appropriate, relevant and correct, and thus whether or not Z can be concluded.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago> Is it really that bad for Levitt to take published research at face value, trusting that gatekeepers upriver have done their due diligence? Yes, it is. There is a reason the reproducibility/replication crisis, especially in the social sciences, is such a hot topic. The podcast doesn't need to "meet the high standard of peer review", but there are plenty of published objections and discussions about Langer's unexpected results, and Levitt should have reviewed that and brought that up before essentially saying "Wow, your results are so unexpected! OK I'm pretty sold!"
- stonethrowaway 2y agoOne of the commenters on that article says how they are supposed to be entertaining. But I’ll add one more: they’re shitposters. It’s entertaining to a certain audience who don’t take them seriously, but causes an outrage in others who are trying to do proper work.
- gs17 2y agoI wouldn't really call the podcast "shitpost-y". It's not hyper-serious, but it's not a big joke typically.
- photochemsyn 2y agoWarning sign right here: > "I’ve got a model in my head of how the world works — a broad framework for making sense of the world around me. I’m sure you’ve got one, too." Anyone with scientific training should know that you should have multiple working hypothesis, you shouldn't wed yourself to one preferred model (which leads to idee fixe, rejecting evidence that doesn't fit your model and even inventing evidence which does). People who fall into this trap start seeing their mental model in the world around them, thinking they're engaging in pattern recognition when they're really doing pattern projection. Their emotions, ego and pride all converge at this point - there are dozens of examples throughout scientific history of people falling into this trap, who end up shaking their fists at experimental data that upsets their apple cart. It's not that hard to hold two conflicting models in your mind at the same time, or more, without ending up emotionally attached to any of them.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoThe "model" under discussion here is much more fundamental than I think you're taking into consideration. Specifically, Langer has suggested that merely thinking about things can lead to physical changes in the world. This is at odds with not just some specific model of something, but with the broadest conception of post-Rennaisance science.
- photochemsyn 2y agoYour brain does burn more glucose when it's working hard and this should cause a noticeable if slight temperature increase in the surrounding environment - so a physical change does take place, just by thinking. Other than that, some extraordinary evidence would be required.
- pigeons 2y agoCould a person cause the physical change in the world of a slightly different configuration of myelin in their body, just with their thoughts?
- binoct 2y ago
- ladymarmite 2y agoEconomics is boring. What if we could instead apply simplistic econometric models to cute problems and explain how crime is actually caused by the adoption of the metric system? That's basically the Freakonomics approach. It's bad science, but it appeals to "skeptics" and "contrarian" midwit liberals.