Hacker News Reader

Comment by metacorrector | Hacker News Reader

the study hinges on whether the researchers who worked on it, designing it and completing many trials over time, writing it up and getting it published, on whether they thought of something that you just thought of? that the unpleasant shock had to be unpleasant?

REALLY? you really think they missed that?

View on HN

Just because it's published is no reason not to question the validity of the study. I've been in science long enough to know that flawed work can into important journals.

The Globe article's title and the original title of the HN post focused on the electrical shocks, implying that people would prefer doing something very painful rather than think silently. I can't read the article itself, but the Science Editor's summary included this:

In fact, many of the people studied, particularly the men, chose to give themselves a mild electric shock rather than be deprived of external sensory stimuli.

Doesn't sound terribly unpleasant. That changes a lot in terms of the headline's conclusion, at least for me.

they are talking about people who would pay money to avoid the very same shocks. So, let's extend your thought, doesn't sound terribly unpleasant? nor does being alone with your thoughts sound terribly unpleasant. But they measured the two and discovered that being alone with your thoughts is MORE unpleasant.

your insight that various aspects of the experiment make a difference can be a valuable tool in order to go look deeper into the experiment, but you didn't do that. I'm saying apply a little of the rigor you are demanding to your own argument.

The real article is behind a paywall so all I have is the Globe article.There isn't much to dig into. Based on he Globe article, the researchers "asked the people how much they would pay to avoid the shock experience if they had $5 to spend." And "...of the 42 people who said they would pay to avoid the shock, two-thirds of men chose to shock themselves..." It didn't say anyone actually stood to lose any real money to avoid shocks. It also doesn't even say how much someone would pay ($5, $1, $0.1), just that they would give up some of (hypothetical) $5 they had. This combined with the fact the shocks were "mild shocks to the ankle" makes me wonder whether that was really unpleasant enough to make the point the Globe headline trumpeted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com