Mind Hacks

It kind if ignores the dynamic nature of science. Most of what is published probably has close to zero impact regardless of whether its right or wrong, but paradigm changing research generally asserts itself.

The problem is that psychology, unlike physics, doesn't really have a paradigm. There's the old saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But for that heuristic to be effective, you need a standard for what counts as extraordinary. Extraordinary compared to what? In phsyics, there are two well-established paradigms (relativity and quantum mechanics), which establish what counts as ordinary, and what counts as extraordinary. So, for example, if you're making a claim that the distribution of dark matter in the cosmos more clumpy than predicted by existing models, of that the energy level of a particular field is 12 MeV rather than 10, those are ordinary claims, which can be accomodated by tweaks to the existing paradigm. But if you're saying that the speed of light has varied over the history of the universe, or that all subatomic particles are actually tiny vibrating string-like structures, well, that's going to require a lot more evidence.

In psychology, it's much more difficult to have that kind of intuition. Take the concept of priming, for example. Is claiming that people walk more slowly when they're encouraged to think of things that make them feel old extraordinary? It makes a certain sort of intuitive sense, but, on the other hand, there's…

It's not a new idea; everyone from Homer, with the lotus-eaters of the Odyssey, to Larry Niven, with his wireheads, has explored it in detail. I don't really count Le Guin's work among those explorations; The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is more in the vein of a parable or morality tale than that of the sort of consideration you describe -- as with The Cold Equations, the usual result tends to be two camps, diametrically opposed for reasons which neither can satisfactorily explain.

The question of why healthy people tend to be opposed to lotus-eating is also not difficult to answer, especially given that what TV Tropes calls the "Lotus-Eater Machine" has been constructed several times in reality, and its addictive nature and harmful effects well documented [1]. Both in individual life and on the scale of societies, what we typically call "civilization" is nothing more or less than an unending war against entropy; this is frequently, if imprecisely, formalized in the common dictum that "it's easier to destroy than to create" -- and easier, too, to sit in one's own filth than otherwise, in the absence of some motivation to do otherwise. Unhappiness serves to provide this motivation, and it is therefore precisely that motivation which the lotus-eater machine removes. After all, if sitting in your own filth doesn't make you unhappy, because you have a wire in your brain which ensures sublime delight no matter your circumstances, why bother to do anything about it? -- and, as…

The sentencing study that found those differences was looking at parole decisions. It is not at all clear that the difference before and after lunch (and a similar difference after an afternoon break) shows any bias.

A later paper showed that you would get the same effect from a simple, rational time management approach. Cases that are granted parole tend to take longer to decide than those that are denied parole.

If the judges can estimate before the hearing which type of case it is likely to be (from things such as the thickness of the case file, what kind of representation the petition has, etc.), they would tend to schedule the cases that look like they will take longer first thing in the morning, or after lunch, or after the afternoon break, and they would schedule the shorter cases closer to break times.

This would result in more granting of parole in the morning and after breaks than before breaks.

Here's an article about this [1].

[1] https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/rational-judges-not-extraneous-factors-in-decisions/

Negotiation skills.

https://abe-winter.github.io/2018/12/20/stalin.html

http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2014/05/the-ultimate-cheat-sheet-to-become-a-great-negotiator/

http://time.com/38796/6-hostage-negotiation-techniques-that-will-get-you-what-you-want/

https://hbr.org/2016/07/how-to-negotiate-with-a-liar

https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-negotiate-with-someone-more-powerful-than-you

https://www.fastcompany.com/3001209/negotiate-car-salesman-5-tactics-help-you-win-every-time

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/ask-a-hostage-negotiator-whats-the-best-way-to-talk-about-a-raise/391943

https://bothsidesofthetable.com/when-should-you-allow-exclusivity-in-deals-15b37534cfba#.zick9tdk7

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2014/11/how-to-deal-with-difficult-people/

https://mindhacks.com/2014/05/26/the-best-way-to-win-an-argument/

This reminds me of a book I read a few years ago - Mind Hacks [1]. It discussed all kinds of interesting mechanisms that our brains use to fool us into thinking that we are always aware of our environment.

In the eye chapter, there was an interesting side-effect of the saccade movement - the "broken watch". This is when your brain fools you into thinking that the picture you see after a saccade has been the same during the movement itself. When you look at your watch and your timing is just right, you will be left with the impression that the seconds arm stays fixed for longer than it should.

I highly recommend the book - it really demonstrates our inner-machinery.

[1] http://mindhacks.com/

If social media is making you gullible, then why would you believe this? If you think a couple of tricks and some neat Web 2.0 tools are going to save you from becoming a social media outcast, then you are probably already a social media outcast. It drives me crazy all these people making totally unsubstantiated claims about how the internet makes people stupid. I suppose because we grew up with TV we're stupider than our parents. Does anyone really believe that?

Since citing some popular books and Times articles apparently means I've got a point, I'd like to refer you to this fascinating article by... a real doctor:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/05/on_the_information_a.html