Hacker News Reader

Comment by meriobrudar | Hacker News Reader

Wait, so they had kids choose a door and there was a 50% chance they get a point or lose a point? And that's what constitutes scientific research these days?

Did they even account for the kids figuring out that whether they win or lose is completely random and there's no skill or pattern involved? You know, like "what's even the point of trying if it's all random anyway"? Maybe that's why some kids weren't thrilled to get a point, because there was literally no effort required to get it, pure chance.

I don't know what the "scientists" expected, but I don't know a single person who goes into euphoria after they win a coin flip. Geez, they might all be at risk of clinical depression!!!!!!!

View on HN

Isn't it more likely that these scientists do actually know what they are doing, and aren't actually the incompetent bumbling fools you seem to think?

I'm baffled that there is always a response to any scientific research along the lines of "Well, these scientists didn't take <obvious confounding factor> into account! They need to compensate for <list of random attributes I just thought up>."

It's psychology I would not place high bets on scientists actually knowing what they are doing.

Quite aside from the fact that appeal to authority is not how science is supposed to work, the current reproducibility crisis suggests that this sort of response need not be as baffling as you seem to find it.

To be clear, I doubt GP has accurately identified a confounder here; the comparison is between children diagnosed with depression and those not so diagnosed, performing the same task, so it's not as though differential response on the task is being used to identify depression. But the larger point that a result need not be taken on faith remains valid, as does the general advisability of knowing what you're talking about before you do so - which GP regrettably seems here to have overlooked.

>Although still analogous to “gambling” tasks used with older samples, the modified version uses varying level of prizes (e.g., poor prize = a single yellow pencil; a great prize = a doll o r nerf toys) instead of the typical monetary incentives. That is, young children do not have a c lear conception of money and its relative quantities; however, at very young ages, children r eactive positively to prizes and gifts. Prior to the task, children were shown 3 boxes of toys: each box had increasingly appealing toys (e.g., least appealing box included standard pencils, and the most appealing box included toys such as dolls and nerf toys). Children were told that wh en they guessed the correct door, they would see a green up arrow, and if they guessed the wrong door, they would see a red arrow pointing down. The experimenter explained that the box of to ys the children could pick from depended on the total number points they earned by guessing doors with either green vs red arrows behind them. Children were told that green arrows were worth 10 pts and red arrows were only worth 5 pts and that the more points they received the better the box they could choose from. The experiment explained that the computer would ke ep track of the number of green and red arrows and their total number of points.

Much more complex than what you're insinuating

"The experimenter explained that the box of to ys the children could pick from depended on the total number points they earned by guessing doors with either green vs red arrows behind them."

Sounds the same to me as what OP suggested. Even as a child (as early as I remember) I hated praise and rewards when I didn't feel I had deserved it by my own efforts. Guessing random events is not among things I consider conscious effort. Furthermore, children background could have impact too: the one from poorer family would be happier to receive a small gift versus the one from rich family that already has a room full of all the toys he could want.

I don't have a reference offhand, but there's research that indicates that depressed people have more realistic outlooks on life, as contrasted with 'normal' people who are hopelessly optimistic. Maybe the depressed kids figured out quicker that the whole study was pointless?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

So you're saying you didn't read the article then. Or you don't believe that gambling excites people. I look forward to your scientific paper where you try to reproduce the result.

>I look forward to your scientific paper where you try to reproduce the result.

Why would the OP try to reproduce something he/she doesn't consider scientific?

Why not? Surely it would be easy to show the unscientific nature of this research?

By attempting to reproduce the results, you can get opposing figures that disprove the original theory

Well obedient consumers should behave like that.

Also did you check lately, maybe you're clinically depressed considering your lack of enthusiasm of the evalution method. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com