Comment by program_whiz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by program_whiz | Hacker News Reader

Here is the refutation being referred to in the article, the article author did a poor job explaining it, and the reason to reject isn't "effect is too large", because the effect is real -- but this study explains it: http://journal.sjdm.org/16/16823/jdm16823.html

1. Prisoners are ordered by whether they have an attorney (so those going last in a session are self-represented)

2. Judges order prisoners often by "complexity of the case", so the ones taking most time are first (and therefore most likely to have a favorable decision, a short/easy case is probably a no-parole situation)

3. Statistically, the cases that gained parole take longer than those that don't, so even if they are random/normally distributed, then if one falls at the end, it will come back to the beginning of next session. A simulation shows that even with random ordering, you still get the same graph (because the long/complex cases that could be paroled tend to be moved to next session when the session is almost out of time).

So after reading this, the graph means: Ratio of cases with a lawyer that can be finished in the remaining time in the session.

Both values are decreasing as the session continues, so it produces a heavy down sloping graph that resets each session to some approximately random value (.65).

Thank you so much for providing this comment. When I was done reading the original link I was wondering if I had missed the author's explanation as to what the alternative theory was. It seemed they were simply saying, "I don't believe it, so it can't be true." Which is more or less what they did, at least in writing. The author may be fully aware of what you mention, but that certainly did not come across at all in what was written.

The author is trying to make an argument that it should have been done by the original researchers - since the implied conclusion is impossible and thus wrong, they shouldn't have been allowed to publish the study with this conclusion without a proper interpretation; and even though he might have some interpretations, what matters is that it was their job to produce them and include them in the paper.

Quoting OP, "It is up to authors to interpret the effect size in their study, and to show the mechanism through which an effect that is impossibly large, becomes plausible. Without such an explanation, the finding should simply be dismissed."

And specifically, that the impossibly large effect has no plausible psychological basis, putting the onus on the researchers to perform additional due-dilligence in the face of data that is completely outside the bounds of the theoretical model(s) under discussion.

Partly the reason by which, for me, reading an article is only the first half - the HN comments on it being the second.

> the reason to reject isn't "effect is too large"

The author argues the effect is too large to be a psychological effect. Your explanation only supports this notion: the effect is real, certainly, but not psychological in nature.

So yes, the effect is too large to be a psychological effect, because the consequences of such a strong psychological effect would not be limited to the court-room alone.

The author never tries to explain the cited paper, they just offer 'a different approach' for how we can know that the original effect isn't caused by hunger.

I appreciate the perspective that, because psychology is variable from human to human, by having a large effect size, it almost certainly invalidates whatever conclusions are made based on the data. This kind of thinking allows the reader to understand further psychological studies without relying on specific refutations, but instead they now have a "bad smell" sense that they can fall back on.

Ordered by whether you have an attorney really saved me when I was 19. I sat patiently, and took notes from attorneys defending people with similar charges. I said the same things, and got the same leniency.

I don't remember much from my operating systems class, but I do remember that "shortest job first" is a more efficient scheduling algorithm than "longest job first".

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to schedule 12 cases that will likely take 15-30 minutes each after the one that will almost certainly take more than 4 hours. I understand that type of scheduling in hospitals, because the complex, time-consuming case is probably the guy who will die if not treated immediately, while the simple cases can afford to wait, but no one is going to die or go broke if their court appearance gets pushed back a week because too many "easy" cases suddenly popped up and pre-empted it.

Is it really that common for a court to have no (or only a few) "easy" cases pending?

Not sure what you're getting at. But, FWIW,

First, the original study in question involved Israeli parole board hearings. I'm not sure if that augurs in favor of few easy cases or many easy cases.

Second, at least in the United States and regarding both general criminal and civil matters, there are few easy cases in terms of how judicial resources are spent. The easy cases would have pled out or settled, with the courts only nominally involved as a matter of process. Trials are arduous time sinks, both inside and outside the court room; few cases go to trial.

On the other, if we're talking about discrete hearings in front a judge, most would be easy. That's because most hearings are for motions or other orders (e.g. approval of a plea deal or settlement), and the complex aspects of those would have largely been hashed out between the parties, in the filings, or in the judge's chambers. That applies for all cases. A trial might take one or two extended courtroom proceedings, but have been preceded (and even succeeded!) by a dozen quick hearings on motions and other process.

You could make the point that the shortest cases are the least valuable (since the chances that they produce a positive result are very slim).

If your goal is to maximize freedom, then complex first could have a much higher return rate than easy first.

Maybe they're trying to minimize the number of hours needed to go through the cases yet to be decided. So whenever some free time comes up, they're able to go through that backlog easily.

It could also be that, just as in medicine, harder cases are more relevant than easier cases. If the amount of effort each side puts into their case has any positive relationship with the value with what is at stake, solving harder cases first would free up whatever is at stake and make it available to society again.

It's akin to a good algorithm for avoiding memory fragmentation - allocate your largest blocks first.

Assuming you need a contiguous block of time for each case, you should schedule the longest case that you expect to complete in the time available, leaving a bunch of cases you can easily slot into whatever time is left.

The big thing missing from that assessment is case variability.

The clear-cut case with a plea bargain already assessed is short, but also predictable. If you schedule it at 11:50 AM, you'll still go to lunch at 12:00. The case that's going to take 16 different motions with unclear evidence isn't just long, it's unpredictable. Even if such cases take an average of one hour, you don't want to put them at 11:00 AM.

Shorter tasks are also easier to reschedule. Pushing three short cases from before lunch to after is much lower-impact than interrupting one big case midway through.

So I don't think your assessment is wrong, but there're other factors deciding this.

You impact fewer people by delaying a long case vs 5 short ones. But, you are likely to forget details and/or spend lunch thinking about a case that's open which is IMO more motivation.

They aren't directly comparable. OS scheduling assumes 100% availability of the resources for its own purposes, with no external interruptions.

However, instead assume that the processor is only available for a couple 4-hour time slices a day. And, for reasons, starting a task that cannot be finished should generally be avoided. Now, if you need an estimated 4 hours to finish a task, that task must be scheduled at the beginning. If you take the alternative and schedule smaller tasks first, say they all take 2 hours. Well, you can't plug a 4-hour task into a 2-hour slot, so you just wasted 2 hours of time.

Unlike the computing power, the mental energy does not stay constant throughout the day. Sedentary work style, mental workload from processing the cases and I guess [lack of] nutrition or hydration all contribute to fatigue.

The bet here is that simpler cases require less mental energy and can be done on autopilot.

> and the reason to reject isn't "effect is too large", because the effect is real

The author didn't make that claim, only that the effect was too large to be purely psychological.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com