On: Michael Lewis and the parable of the lucky man taking the extra cookie (2017)

[paulsutter]

Michael Lewis is a "financial journalist". In journalism its called "good storytelling" to portray a cartoonish world of good and evil.

[davidkuhta → paulsutter]

While that may be true, in this instance he is quoting (nearly verbatim) from the study author: https://youtu.be/0vvl46PmCfE?t=1m41s

[gerdesj → davidkuhta]

I read New Scientist and sometimes psychology research is mentioned there and given credence.

How on earth is: "lips smacking, mouth open, drool at the corners of their mouths" science? By that I mean, it is not the sort of thing I would expect to see in a paper unless there were photographs of the effect as evidence.

[paulsutter → davidkuhta]

Does this raise any questions for you about the objectivity of the study author?

[AboutTheWhisles → paulsutter]

Why are you asking him? He isn't defending it, he just pointed it out.

[gerdesj → paulsutter]

Are you having a laugh?

Soz, I should explain: Allow a speech about something a bit of leeway but if the source is bollocks, then call it out as such.

Science is a thing. The scientific method is a thing. A speech at an event can be a bit wayward and take liberties but the original, quoted, research should be sound.

Is it?

[im3w1l → gerdesj]

Scientists are just people who slept through a few more lectures than the rest of us. Of course they can be full of shit occasionally.

[skybrian → paulsutter]

A big question mark is that they talk about it in the video but the study was apparently never published? (See other comments, below.)