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

Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

inews.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#111

Post by ren_engineer »

franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

best option is to just assume every psychology/social sciences article is bullshit, pretty much all of the most famous studies have failed to replicate. And many of those studies were used to justify trillions of dollars in federal spending over the past few decades

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#112

Post by katbyte »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #102
katbyte wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps they have a much faster metabolism and are hypo-glycemic? I accidentally go all day without food. They must carry snacks.

Or perhaps you’re just a better listener. Do you _know_ they _must_ carry snacks or are you imagining that’s how they must be? The real trick of this is realizing people do the same “imagining” with their own body and their own selves. They do not know.

They have been diagnosed with hypoglycaemia so yes I’m pretty sure they are listening to their own body.

Tbh it’s me who’s ignoring mine by not eating

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#113

Post by boppo1 »

ren_engineer wrote: post #111
franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

best option is to just assume every psychology/social sciences article is bullshit, pretty much all of the most famous studies have failed to replicate. And many of those studies were used to justify trillions of dollars in federal spending over the past few decades

Examples of 'failed-to-replicate-but-used-to-justify'?

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#114

Post by satvikpendem »

ren_engineer wrote: post #111
franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

best option is to just assume every psychology/social sciences article is bullshit, pretty much all of the most famous studies have failed to replicate. And many of those studies were used to justify trillions of dollars in federal spending over the past few decades

Indeed, the book The Quick Fix goes over exactly this point. For example, did you know that the Superman pose had no scientific evidence whatsoever? The researcher simply pushed for it because it made her feel good. The grit study by Angela Duckworth is similarly faulty, the cadet training camp she went to had a pass rate of over 90% so the ones who didn't pass weren't in a statistically significant group to show whether their grittiness actually meant anything to them failing or passing.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#115

Post by satvikpendem »

boppo1 wrote: post #113
ren_engineer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

best option is to just assume every psychology/social sciences article is bullshit, pretty much all of the most famous studies have failed to replicate. And many of those studies were used to justify trillions of dollars in federal spending over the past few decades

Examples of 'failed-to-replicate-but-used-to-justify'?

Read the book The Quick Fix, which has many examples.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#116

Post by leroy-is-here »

katbyte wrote: post #112
leroy-is-here wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps you’re just a better listener. Do you _know_ they _must_ carry snacks or are you imagining that’s how they must be? The real trick of this is realizing people do the same “imagining” with their own body and their own selves. They do not know.

They have been diagnosed with hypoglycaemia so yes I’m pretty sure they are listening to their own body. Tbh it’s me who’s ignoring mine by not eating

Yes, it took me a long time to realize that pain, and pangs, and feelings aren't minor inconveniences that I must live with, but my body telling me something was wrong or needed adjustment. I've found that fasting helps us stop ignoring what the body is telling us.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#117

Post by wpietri »

franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

Yeah, as somebody who has experimented with fasting, I think it's a huge mistake to think that Ramadan fasters would respond like hungry non-fasters.

Fasting is a common religious practice because it is both a challenge and a discipline. To get good at fasting, you have to work to unlearn habits of instant gratification and learn to consciously lean against the urgings of the body. A fasting practice develops real skills.

It's perfectly plausible to me that Ramadan-observing judges would better at judging while hungry while non-fasters would get worse. So this article's author is doing exactly what he criticizes: assuming his naive model is the only explanation.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#118

Post by kvee »

ren_engineer wrote: post #111
franciscop wrote: post #16

Interesting bias on the bias: the author of this article seems not to have experienced a prolonged fast themselves, otherwise they'd know this is not true at all: > "longer fasts – and thus, presumably, greater hunger" As anyone who has fasted for probably any reason can tell you, the longer the fast the less hungry you are overall AFTER an initial peak. Meaning, miss a meal and you are hungry, miss two and you becom…

best option is to just assume every psychology/social sciences article is bullshit, pretty much all of the most famous studies have failed to replicate. And many of those studies were used to justify trillions of dollars in federal spending over the past few decades

I think the best thing is to do more research to understand more rather than rejecting the scientific method entirely. It has and will continue to get better and better over time, with occasional regressions that may seem meaningful in the short term but are tiny blips when you zoom out. The history of science is one false theory being replaced by another that’s (usually) marginally closer to the truth.

Re: Do judges give out tougher sentences when hungry? A study too good to be true

#119

Post by karaterobot »

I'm very open to the possibility that the original 'hungry judges' study was flawed — many such studies don't stand up to scrutiny, let alone replication, and we should usually not give them a lot of credence. That said, I don't think that the study discussed in this article is close enough to the conditions of that original study to be directly comparable.
Post reply on HN