4 ms·

Some great winners this time, personal favorite: > IG NOBEL ECONOMICS PRIZE 2026 [USA, MEXICO, CANADA] Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendo

Some great winners this time, personal favorite: > IG NOBEL ECONOMICS PRIZE 2026 [USA, MEXICO, CANADA] Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner, for amassing evidence that upper class people are more likely to snatch from a children’s supply of candy, and engage in other kinds of unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 11, 2012, pp. 4086-4091. <doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109>

VyseofArcadia 1mo ago
This one feels like it deserves more than just an Ig Nobel.
- Tomte 1mo ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567241
- zdragnar 1mo ago
  Far more or far less? The study is so profoundly flawed that it should be in a hall of shame, along with whatever journal published it.
dinfinity 1mo ago
It's not really a surprise that less ethical people on average are richer than ethical people. Sad, but logical: they more often choose selfishly and thus amass more money. This is the correct direction of causation in this case, imho.
- underlipton 1mo ago
  Is it? Wealth is used as a proxy for virtue, and has been for a long time. "Nobility" has two meanings, after all. Why the same word, if not the same root sentiment? Unless one definition was originally meant sarcastically.
  - zorked 1mo ago
    Is it? Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. [I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” This guy is pretty influential in at least half the globe.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - underlipton 1mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582188 That's at least one sector of the Christian world that ignores that line. I don't think they're alone. You also have other etymological canaries like "fortune" meaning both "wealth" and "blessing". The thinking is that good things happen to good people, with "good things" including "coming into money". But, as we see, that seems to be erroneous. Just because good things happen to a person doesn't mean that they're good.
    - mdp2021 29d ago
      You are reading the term too literally. (And by the way, you are using a severely outdated translation.)
  - tontonius 1mo ago
    Wait, what does nobility mean other than aristocracy?
    - sparky_z 1mo ago
      You've never heard something selfless and good described as "noble"?
    - mdp2021 29d ago
      > what does nobility mean other than aristocracy "Noble" means "known". "Aristos" means "best" (best fit). The "noble" (the notables) are empowered ("-cracy") for being the best ("aristos"). Moral qualities, practical abilities, enabling the exercise of a role in society.
howunfortunate 1mo ago
I knew immediately this was BS, sure enough, someone already beat me to it with the comment explaining why. Man, I'm so ashamed of my field (experimental psychology). Maybe ~60% of publications are literally worse than useless (that is, they are outright intentional lies).
- bethekidyouwant 1mo ago
  The damage done will take decades to fix if it can be fixed. No idea why anyone would even bother engaging with (experimental psychology)
  - howunfortunate 1mo ago
    If you have a Ph.D. you can somewhat sort the wheat from the chaff. But it's 100% not worth it for the layman. Better to just ignore it. That's why, even though it's incredibly sad to see, I can hardly begrudge the current administration their "defund anything and everything using keyword search". Since they can't trust the experts, that's really about the best that can be done from their perspective.
    - analog31 1mo ago
      The ones who are vetting these articles have PhDs. Disclosure: PhD
      - howunfortunate 1mo ago
        Oh, I know. There are many reasons why peer review doesn't work including but not limited to (1) motivated reasoning AKA complicity in whatever lie is being pushed (2) no real incentive to put effort into peer review (3) laziness and irresponsibility, see also point 2 (4) the "somewhat" qualifier I put in my original comment. I'm being critical of peer reviewers here, but it's a genuinely very difficult job that takes massive effort to do well. And then there's actual malpractice like editing data, which is functionally impossible to catch in peer review if the authors are clever. The whole system replies on trust, and trust is completely underserved.

VyseofArcadia 1mo ago

This one feels like it deserves more than just an Ig Nobel.

Tomte 1mo ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567241
zdragnar 1mo ago
Far more or far less? The study is so profoundly flawed that it should be in a hall of shame, along with whatever journal published it.

dinfinity 1mo ago

It's not really a surprise that less ethical people on average are richer than ethical people. Sad, but logical: they more often choose selfishly and thus amass more money. This is the correct direction of causation in this case, imho.

underlipton 1mo ago
Is it? Wealth is used as a proxy for virtue, and has been for a long time. "Nobility" has two meanings, after all. Why the same word, if not the same root sentiment? Unless one definition was originally meant sarcastically.
- zorked 1mo ago
  Is it? Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. [I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” This guy is pretty influential in at least half the globe.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - underlipton 1mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582188 That's at least one sector of the Christian world that ignores that line. I don't think they're alone. You also have other etymological canaries like "fortune" meaning both "wealth" and "blessing". The thinking is that good things happen to good people, with "good things" including "coming into money". But, as we see, that seems to be erroneous. Just because good things happen to a person doesn't mean that they're good.
  - mdp2021 29d ago
    You are reading the term too literally. (And by the way, you are using a severely outdated translation.)
- tontonius 1mo ago
  Wait, what does nobility mean other than aristocracy?
  - sparky_z 1mo ago
    You've never heard something selfless and good described as "noble"?
  - mdp2021 29d ago
    > what does nobility mean other than aristocracy "Noble" means "known". "Aristos" means "best" (best fit). The "noble" (the notables) are empowered ("-cracy") for being the best ("aristos"). Moral qualities, practical abilities, enabling the exercise of a role in society.

howunfortunate 1mo ago

I knew immediately this was BS, sure enough, someone already beat me to it with the comment explaining why. Man, I'm so ashamed of my field (experimental psychology). Maybe ~60% of publications are literally worse than useless (that is, they are outright intentional lies).

bethekidyouwant 1mo ago
The damage done will take decades to fix if it can be fixed. No idea why anyone would even bother engaging with (experimental psychology)
- howunfortunate 1mo ago
  If you have a Ph.D. you can somewhat sort the wheat from the chaff. But it's 100% not worth it for the layman. Better to just ignore it. That's why, even though it's incredibly sad to see, I can hardly begrudge the current administration their "defund anything and everything using keyword search". Since they can't trust the experts, that's really about the best that can be done from their perspective.
  - analog31 1mo ago
    The ones who are vetting these articles have PhDs. Disclosure: PhD
    - howunfortunate 1mo ago
      Oh, I know. There are many reasons why peer review doesn't work including but not limited to (1) motivated reasoning AKA complicity in whatever lie is being pushed (2) no real incentive to put effort into peer review (3) laziness and irresponsibility, see also point 2 (4) the "somewhat" qualifier I put in my original comment. I'm being critical of peer reviewers here, but it's a genuinely very difficult job that takes massive effort to do well. And then there's actual malpractice like editing data, which is functionally impossible to catch in peer review if the authors are clever. The whole system replies on trust, and trust is completely underserved.