Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#11

Post by trishume »

oerpli wrote: post #3

Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not. Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/ One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.

Remembering exactly this I went and found the paper and looked and the sample sizes aren't that small, I couldn't see any missing comparisons, and the relevant P values are less than 0.01 so not obviously super P-hacked.

On the other hand it is a priming study that would probably not have been published if the result went the other way, and it's a newsworthy result. All indicators of non-replication.

I got 88% accuracy on the replication quiz and if this was on the quiz I would have marked it as unsure. I don't think it's obviously bogus, but also I'm not totally convinced.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#12

Post by JumpCrisscross »

trishume wrote: post #11
oerpli wrote: post #3

Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not. Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/ One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.

Remembering exactly this I went and found the paper and looked and the sample sizes aren't that small, I couldn't see any missing comparisons, and the relevant P values are less than 0.01 so not obviously super P-hacked. On the other hand it is a priming study that would probably not have been published if the result went the other way, and it's a newsworthy result. All indicators of non-replication. I got 88% accura…

> it is a priming study

Wasn’t the original study which claimed to “discover” priming recently debunked as not replicable?

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#13

Post by TeMPOraL »

olliej wrote: post #4

Can we stop posting articles like this to HN when the underlying paper isn’t publicly available? Especially these “doing X causes [major behavioral change]” papers where the sample size is super important, and they also tend to have very low reproducibility rates?

> when the underlying paper isn’t publicly available?

Search with the DOI on SciHub, you'll get a PDF of the paper.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#14

Post by mamon »

Nadya wrote: post #9
olliej wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this. Also there was a similarly sized study a few weeks ago, and basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities. If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to have a very large and very significant measurable effect, and the smaller your sample size the larger the effect needs to be to have any confidence of the correctn…

>2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this. For a population size of 350,000,000 people the required sample size for a 95% confidence level within a 2% margin of error is 2,401 people. Assuming these 2,401 people were selected properly then that is just about enough, even for a claim like this.

To be „chosen properly” means that the sample must have similar age, racial, educational, gender structure as the 350M society it is supposed to represent. Recruiting 2401 college students as the only sample automatically makes any study unscientific bullshit.

Also, if you ask me, 95% confidence with 2% error margin is pretty low bar.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#15

Post by mockingbirdy »

oerpli wrote: post #3

Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not. Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/ One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.

Would love to play this, but unfortunately:

> This page is not set up to run this program.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#16

Post by smudgymcscmudge »

oerpli wrote: post #3

Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not. Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/ One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.

I did that quiz. Part way through I figured out to always choose no for priming and yes for anything related to game theory.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#17

Post by bcaa7f3a8bbc »

sincerely wrote: post #10
olliej wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this. Also there was a similarly sized study a few weeks ago, and basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities. If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to have a very large and very significant measurable effect, and the smaller your sample size the larger the effect needs to be to have any confidence of the correctn…

>basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities. welcome to psychology studies

https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-secrets-most-psycho...

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#18

Post by noobermin »

oerpli wrote: post #3

Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not. Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/ One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.

Allow me to hijack this thread. There is something very similar to the issue around repeatability of results in Psych fields and the lack of experimental evidence in theoretical particle physics which has been the focus of previous articles on HN. Both fields are dealing with large elephants in their respective fields in which some people know what the issue is, but rather than having a widespread reckoning, people keep publishing papers as if everything is okay. If anything, this demonstrates a problem that peer-reviewed science is not able to fix.

I have my own thoughts, it's due to the siloed nature of science today, given publish of perish forces us to keep our head down and keep publishing whilst ignoring the big picture problems with the hope someone with more funding in a more prestiguous position will do something. It's more problematic in Psych though, because people and their quality of life are at stake which is not a situation in theoretical physics.

Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study

#19

Post by xabuq » 

  "LIBERALS"
There's this cross section of people who physically wretch and convulse at hearing that word, and can be whipped into an animalistic rage with the mention of it.

When I hear it used in a certain way, by certain media outlets, it's obvious that they're gunning for a pavlovian response.

It's incredibly manipulative, and the real problem I have with it, is that an astounding number of people eat it up, eager to froth at the mouth and start speaking in tongues, wailing and gnashing teeth.

It's funny, but maybe three quarters of all people are looking for a reason to just unload on someone, at any given moment. They really want the lid lifted, so they can vent some rage onto another person. People may differ on how they rationalize the way they find targets, but one common trait unites them, in that more than half of everyone is looking for a fight.

Post reply on HN