Brief comments suggesting this result is p-hacking are being downvoted, but I highly doubt this result will replicate. There's just so many chances (men/women/everyone, light, hunger) to reject the null hypothesis, no attempt as far as I can see to correct for this (e.g., Bonferroni), no priors/regularization, etc.
> Imagine if humans had another sense we didn't know about all this time!
This is purely based on my anecdotal experience, but I'm 100% convinced some people do have the ability to orientate themselves that can only be explained with magnetism (or something similar).
Also, there have been previous studies on the subject:
This doesn't really mesh with how we perceive time. It appears to be a product of accumulated experiences in short-term memory. People with attention deficit disorders experience time differently and are unable to gauge even short periods accurately, but even for neurotypical people, time seems to "pass quickly" if nothing takes place, or if you're distracted. It's a function of attention, instead of our other senses (smell, hunger, hearing), which happen whether we pay attention to them or not.
Actually time perception prospectively and retrospectively is completely different. They react to emotional content differently and seem to rely on different mechanisms. What you describe is only true for retrospective time perception.
Should be noted that our _perception of time_ is subtly different to _sensing of time_; consider our circadian rhythm, relating to the latter [1]:
> The daily light-dark cycle governs rhythmic changes in the behavior and/or physiology of most species. Studies have found that these changes are governed by a biological clock, which in mammals is located in two brain areas called the suprachiasmatic nuclei. The circadian cycles established by this clock occur throughout nature and have a period of approximately 24 hours. In addition, these circadian cycles can be synchronized to external time signals but also can persist in the absence of such signals.
> Circadian rhythms are self-sustaining (i.e., free running), meaning that they will persist when the organism is placed in an environment devoid of time cues, such as constant light or constant darkness. For comparison, see diurnal, infradian, and ultradian.
It's been noted that our "approximately 24 hours" sleep/wake cycle _does_ use external environmental cues (light, hunger) to keep it in check, but in absence of light cues we still generally tend to experience the cyclical 24-hour need to sleep followed by wakefulness. Without the external cues though sleep studies have shown it drifting - more like a 24.5 hour cycle. Can't find a citation for that one, but I remember it from the book "Why We Sleep" [2]
That being said! I just looked it up, and found studies suggesting that ADHD could either be a cause of, or consequence of, sleep disturbances [3]
But tl;dr of my comment is basically that we (mammals) do have a kind of internal clock ("suprachiasmatic nuclei"), which can operate in lieu of external cues -- but maybe we just haven't yet discovered another one of its' cue, which may be magnetic oscillations in the Earth's field..? Maybe this is something we'll have to consider as our astronauts venture further into space, away from Earth's influence [4] - maybe there's more to it than light cues!
I agree with you that this is p-hacking, but this makes me curious. Could p-hacking be used in a positive way to find obscure correlations which can be used to generate novel hypotheses which can then be replicated/tested independently?
A p value close to the significance level ought to mean we need more data. Journals should start to reject papers that do experiments with bad designs.
If there's a real effect, with more data the p value will decrease, or the signal will go away. Uncertainty decreases.
Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true
it makes sense that this would have evolved. Men go out at night to hunt they hunt better on moonless nights under the cover of relative darkness they might need to travel far and then get home. If you can sense the Earth's magnetic field you'll be a better navigator and more likely to get home with the food from the hunt more likely to help your tribe and propagate your genes
I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.
You can invent post hoc justifications for almost any positive conclusion (although this one is weak since the authors admit the effect cannot be detected in individuals, only in aggregate).
> I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.
I hate to be that guy, but imo practical statistics are a joke. The samples are tainted and biased, and the results have nothing to do with the population at large.
Are you sure about that, tho? Can you prove that it's actually a p-hack? You can level the accusation, but how do you go about substantiating it? I'd like to see the numbers and the data, not bombast.
It's actually up to the paper to prove that it's not a p-hack. That's done by declaring a null hypothesis and the intended stats analysis to be done before doing the experiment and collecting the data, because otherwise you can just compare arbitrary things until you find that some of them are correlated in the set you have. There's no numerical post-hoc analysis that would be able to prove that.
Exactly - a p-hack is a form of misreporting, so isn't easy to detect at the level of individual studies.
However, p-hacking isn't the only threat to replicability: in this case the authors have reported a large set of tests, so we can ask why they didn't control family-wise error via Bonferroni or friends (in which case the reported statistical significance almost certainly disappears). Also, I suspect if you fit Bayesian models (either separately or a hierarchical model) using reasonably narrow priors based on what we know about human sensitivity to magnetic fields, how much other senses are affected by sex differences, hunger, etc., and not starting each test assuming a complete state of ignorance of the world, then the data would be compatible with no effect.
Is it really tho? Up to the paper to prove it's not something you say it is? I don't think so. The paper is what it is. If you claim it's fake, you need to make evidence for that. Not just launch lazy accusations. Seriously, what is what you said, if not just a lazy dismissal (oh it must be a p-hack)? And you're content with that?
That's not science. They went to the trouble. If you're going to just dismiss it, and claim that's valid, you should go to the trouble to do science on that hypothesis you have. Thanks, friend! :P ;) xx
In this case, the researchers admit and indicate they are doing multiple tests, but have not then done a multiple testing correction.
That's not even really a "p-hack" (where you hide that you have done multiple tests, in order to avoid a multiple testing correction and to report only the positive results): it's simply a p-mistake.
What they have said is statistically incorrect, judged on its own merits. Their conclusion is not supported by the research they have done.
I mean just because the statistics don't satiate your standards doesn't exclude the possibility of being sensitive to GMF.
In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. We really need to stop treating the Earth like its just a magnetic rock. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.
You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. When you die your body decomposes and it becomes soil and nutrients for plants which in turn feed the ecology which where our food comes from. So its hard pressed to just dismiss this as "spiritual pseudoscience". It is precisely this type of shallow thinking in Western ideology that is responsible for the global climate crisis. Your culture has thoroguhly destroyed earth and the next generation will pay the price because of your ignorance.
There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.
edit: HN has a serious pedantry problem. Anything that challenges conventional wisdom is villified and attacked by nitpicking minor details that many only have surface level understanding. There is no p-hacking here, overwhelming portion of the samples shows the said sensitivity described qualitatively and quantitatively.
> HN has a serious pedantry problem. Anything that challenges conventional wisdom is villified and attacked
I think you're being downvoted because you've misinterpreted the GP as saying a proposition is untrue ("exclude the possibility"), when the GP is just saying this study isn't evidence either way. Then you went on a pseudoscientific naturalistic tangential rant.
You seem to be claiming that denying this study is evidence either way shows an over-reliance on statistics. Furthermore, this over-reliance on statistics is a myopia particular to Western culture. This over-reliance on statistical significance has lead to poor environmental policy (with some thrown in hints toward naturalistic fallacy arguments). Am I understanding your argument correctly?
I would argue that the major problem with environmental policy in the U.S. is that it under-values statistically significant studies.
Fetishization of non-Western and pre-modern cultures isn't helpful. There are plenty of environmental disasters in both Asia and Africa. Slash-and-burn agriculture predates history, and Rio Tinto shows environmental damage from mining operations 5,000 years ago, so 'reject Western culture" and "just return to the old ways" aren't sufficient as a basis for environmental policy. (My apologies if you weren't hinting at a return to pre-modern practices. I know you didn't mention anything about ancient peoples, but I got a feeling that's where this discussion is headed and wanted to cut one round-trip out of the conversation.)
What would you propose as an alternative basis for environmental policy, if not studies of statistical significance?
I am not claiming that the possibility is excluded, just that it is not demonstrated here.
> In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.
> You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.
I agree that biology is profound, but pseudoscientific generalities like this confuse rather than clarify.
[Likely typo: birds are not mammals.]
To be fair, the GP may have been claiming that mammals sense magnetic fields and then the mammals guide avian migrations. The sentence is ambiguous ("In mammals, this is what guides birds ..."). This kind of fits with their whole "all of nature is one. The Force is created by all life and flows through and binds all things" vibe of the GP's post.
As far as I know people typically hid from predators at night, not hunted. And were more likely to be active during the light of a full moon rather than a dark night. We really rely on our eyes. And in Africa, where we come from, it's very dangerous to be about at night. That's when the big predators are most active.
I think you need to read the paper. The blue light they provided was noted as being "similar to a moonless night", and I'd bet that it's a blue kind of light you get under starlight.
Were you there tho? How can you substantiate that they hunted in the way you say? In my experience, humans have very good sight on a moonless night, a full moon is basically daylight and provides no cover, so I think your assertion is false, and you need to spend some time outdoors on moonless nights.
Obviously I was not there, neither were you. I said I think humans avoided the night based on the way other primates in the area are prey for the big cats and hyenas. I've also never heard of any recent hunter-gatherer cultures where they hunt at night. I think that's strong evidence against your claim.
You think humans would have risked the dangers to hunt at night for better cover but without evidence. Can you find an example of of a recent human hunter-gatherer group that did that? Any archaeological evidence? Obviously we're not evolved as nocturnal animals - so the evolutionary evidence goes against your theory.
Just in context, you're arguing against a random point I made in tangent to the main discussion here, but OK. If you feel you need something to knock against, hello. So...
No, not without evidence. Simply just evidence that you don't want to see or don't think exists, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I get if you look at the same stuff and reach different conclusions. But you say you think not hearing about stuff is strong evidence against. I don't think so, that you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You want to ask for "evidence"...can you really provide any evidence either way? Can you give me like a study that compares hunter-gatherer groups and shows a majority of them do most of their hunting during the day? No. So don't try to talk about evidence as if you're backing up your claims with it. How ridiculous.
We're both just thought experimenting. So...Comparing humans to other primates it stupid. We're an apex predator. Our ancestors even more so re hunting. Just think about it. What will we eat? When will it be easier to catch that? How do other super predators hunt? At night. We were hunting experts. Our hunting behaviors would probably be similar to other hunting experts. "Hunt at night" describes every spec ops outfit ever, as well as big cats.
We're evolved enough to hunt at night in moonless nights I'd say your "evolutionary evidence" which you claim supports your idea, actually fully supports what I'm saying instead.
You don't seem like you're open to changing your mind or learning something new here, so I don't expect you to respond and go, "Oh yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Good point."
Haha, i assure you the air is very cool. Did you give any either? No. We're both just thought experimenting. Just seemed fine to work with that until you got beat. Now your just pretending your don't get any evidence, when you never had any to start with. Don't a pretender! Own it, you lost.
So you didn't learn? Told you (my other account I put a long noprocrast on). And if you did, who's fault is that? You want to blame someone but yourself? That's your responsibility, not mine, of course, because what you think and react is up to you, not me. You could have learned something, but you weren't open to it. You pretended everything I said was wrong, because it wasn't what you said, and didn't conform to your view.
When you missed your opportunities to learn, because you wanted to look "right" instead:
1.
You: no one hunts at night, no blue light.
Me: paper says night blue light.
Not you: Ok, you're right, blue light.
2.
Actually you: No solo human night hunters!
Me: packs.
Not you: You're right, packs. But night?
3.
Actually you: NO evidence for night!
Me: Night makes sense, here's examples. But consider...No "evidence" for anything, neither of us know, we're just thinking about it.
Not you: OK, you're right, night makes sense, and btw, you're right, I've offered no evidence either. Let's keep thinking
4.
Actually you: Still no evidence!
So the pattern seems to be, when you've been outdone in thinking, you retreat into a cave crying for more "evidence" when that was never the currency you dealt with in the first place, and you were content to base your existing views on zero evidence, but not content to hear views of others without evidence. What can explain that except a form or arrogance, where your view is someone necessarily "more true" than someone else's? Or a form of fear, where you are unable to admit that someone knows something you don't? (I find this to be common in engineers perhaps because their wallet size is tied to their percieved "knowledge size" ~~ but I always wonder, how can knowledge get bigger if you cannot say, "I don't know, thanks for teaching me")
You had at least 3 places you could have learned something, and explored the topic together, but instead of doing that...you just kept saying, basically, "What you say is wrong, I'm right".
Maybe you just don't trust yourself to think yourself to some new perspective, you need someone else (with "authority" or "evidence") to tell you, 'this has been "proved", now you can "trust" it.' Or maybe you were just not willing to admit you didn't know and choose to become open to learning something from someone else...because...you think you're smarter than or more experienced than everyone so you couldn't learn from them, as that would challenge your precious belief of your superiority? I don't think it's what you "know" that makes you "superior" or not, I think it's your ability to "know", to be open, and to think. It's possible we just have different ideas of that, and each of us is pursuing our own idea of the best thing to do. I get you want evidence, (who doesn't) but it's disingenuous to demand of others that when you don't even demand that of yourself.
I don't want to think you're one of those irretrievably arrogant people who can never ever admit they were wrong, but I've often been optimistically biased towards seeing a fantasy of the good in people long past it should have been evident to me that the reality of them didn't live up to that. Maybe you really are like that. But I prefer to think it's simply a misunderstanding, and you were not understanding things or having a bad day or something.
So I wish you have a better 2021! Make it great :p ;) xx
Why respond to the weakest possible version of what I say? The version that requires almost a deliberate imagination against the likely interpretation. Besides being against the HN guidelines...Of course humans hunt in packs. What are you even thinking?
I'm sure you weren't trying to do that specifically, but this propensity of people to straw man everything to find a gap to then comment against, and pretend that their "successful" comment against a straw man disproves the real comment they're replying to (which of course it doesn't), lets me feel like commenting online is so different to talking in person. Almost like every comment needs to be written like a legal document covering every possible edge case and malicious misinterpretation...Ugh. People seem obsessed with being right and proving others wrong, rather than learning. So often pretending it's binary, rather than nuanced.
I guess this is the "game" of commenting online. We pretend it's about learning, but actually it's about "outwitting" others with these malicious misinterpretations (bad faith interpretations), malevolent reframings, ignoring data that contravenes your cherished beliefs (confirmation bias) and other dirty rhetorical tricks. Maybe everyone's day to day sucks so much they need to come online to feel they're finally smarter and more dominant than someone else...maybe it's just an outlet....Of course it's not. There's plenty of good discussions, but the bad discussions happen much more online than in real life.
I don't care to get good at such a "game". I want to be able to defend against that balderdash type commentary, rather than just tolerate or ignore it, but I also want to learn. I'm pretty certain I'm guilty of most of this stuff myself......I think this metacomment by me can serve as a reminder to myself to try to get good enough at this game so I can ignore it, but to not make that my focus, with my focus instead being learning. If I do bother to comment, I may as well create and get something good for myself and others.
> Why respond to the weakest possible version of what I say?
If there was a rule somewhere, I tried to point out an exception. A feline has better sight at night than a human. Any north-pole-searching human that (hungrily) goes out in the middle of the night might be attacked by night predators.
No 'gaming' or 'outwitting' or anything like that. And I don't know much about 'games' you talk about. It was no my intention to 'game' you or to look smarter. But, please, if you need to, write a comment to this message to vent out anything you need to vent out. I promise I won't care.
So what you're saying doesn't mean humans don't go out at night, they just go hunt in packs, like I'm saying.
Why respond to the weakest version of what I'm saying and pretend like the point I'm making is wrong? You get that I think. Language is not "rules", and "pointing out exceptions" is treating what I'm saying as "containing that exception", which is an overly literal interpretation, that assumes the weakest version, and seems to lead to bad faith readings of comments as their weakest versions.
Don't be so literal...this isn't programming. Assume the best/strongest version of what someone's saying. That's in the guidelines. I'm sure you already know (or can figure out) why that's a good thing to do.
So...if you don't care then why did you bring it up? Just to say you don't care? I think that's might be a problem you have. Not caring. If you're going to respond to someone, I think you should care for what they said, otherwise you might say something stupid. Like this case in point.
So you respond to that by trying to reframe it and pretend I'm "venting", and also that you invite me or "give me permission" to do that. Yeah, like I need your permission, of course I don't. And if you don't care, why do this reframing where you are like the one "giving permission" ... to give yourself more status? Which is obviously ridiculous, as you're of course not ever giving me permission to talk, and I don't ever need that from you, and I don't need to be "invited" by you in order to reply. You chose to make your comment, and I choose to make mine. Who do you think you are talking like that?
So...I'm not "venting", I'm just saying whatever I choose to say, which in this case happens to be a specific metacommentary criticism of you responding to the weakest version. So you (and your reframing) might want to pretend this is entirely about something other than you, and pretend that I must just need to "vent" about something entirely unrelated to you, but in fact what I'm saying is directly talking about what you did. I understand that might be hard for you to face, but I think reconsidering your pattern of "trying to point out" exceptions, will lead you to make better, more caring and more high value comments. I'm sure you can do that.
Thanks because I was about to run down the list of upvoters and just make sure they were updating me for "right" reasons. Not, hehe. I think that comment is totally right that you can upvote for, but understand if you and a handful of other people differ. No problem at all.
Fair enough. But is it a p-hack? Has that been proven? It's an easy dismissal without any data. Backfill hypothetical stories of why is also knows as thinking and theorizing. You ought to try it. It's how science gets done. Understand if you're averse to that, tho :) ;p x
It’s absolutely not. Making testable hypotheses and then running experiments to try to prove them wrong is how science is done. Making untestable hypotheses is by definition the realm of philosophy.
Don't even have to read the paper to know exactly what transpired here with high confidence. The author(s) set up an experiment without a hypothesis, threw in 100 candidate variables such as 'were they exposed to blue light', 'was the roof on fire', etc etc. They calculated P-values on all 100 and with a threshold of P < 0.05, they predictably rejected the null hypothesis 5 times. Then they conveniently left out 90 or so variables that failed the test.
wow thank you, i don't know how i never knew the term for this. it's gotten frustrating explaining so often, as it happens too often. as my old econometrics professor would say, "knowing a little bit about statistics is a very bad thing"
It's interesting too that hunger is involved, and it makes sense: you want your senses to be heightened if not having access to a food source - for hunting and/or gathering.
I definitely experience an increasing sensitivity when water fasting.
Most blue light glasses seem to be just fashion accessories [0]
As sister comment recommends Axon and other brands seem to block a different wavelength and tout better results, but I have no first hand experience and I don't think there is much independant studies done on their glasses specifically
According to Wikipedia : "Humans are not thought to have a magnetic sense, but there is a protein (a cryptochrome) in the eye which could serve this function" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception
I'm leaning towards p-hacking myself, but I'll note the composition of your photoreceptors is partially coded on your X chromosome, which leads to differences if you have 1 or 2 X's -- one X makes colorblindness significantly more likely, 2 X's are needed for tetrachromatism.
What is most fascinating about this is the complete naivety of the subjects. If the effect is real, I would expect it ought to be trainable. I would expect conditioned subjects to perform better than naive.
But I am not being cheeky when I say I've read more rigorous ESP experiments. At least this has a vaguely plausible biological mechanism?
> Cryptochrome forms a pair of radicals with correlated spins when exposed to blue light.[50][51] Radical pairs can also be generated by the light-independent dark reoxidation of the flavin cofactor by molecular oxygen through the formation of a spin-correlated FADH-superoxide radical pairs.[52] Magnetoreception is hypothesized to function through the surrounding magnetic field's effect on the correlation (parallel or anti-parallel) of these radicals, which affects the lifetime of the activated form of cryptochrome.
I'd like a follow up to this experiment where someone augmented magnetic fields -
"For six weird weeks in the fall of 2004, Udo Wächter had an unerring sense of direction. Every morning after he got out of the shower, Wächter, a sysadmin at the University of Osnabrück in Germany, put on a wide beige belt lined with 13 vibrating pads - the same weight-and-gear modules that make a cell phone judder. On the outside of the belt were a power supply and a sensor that detected Earth's magnetic field. Whichever buzzer was pointing north would go off. Constantly."
Ever since I heard about this kind of sensory augmentation, I have wanted a higher bandwidth port into the brain, and ideally a minimally invasive one. Vision is great bandwidth but tricky to tap into. I have wanted to try the North sense as a single rgb LED on my glasses.
Tactile is good for a side channel - and you can even read with it - but the coding/modulation is key. Auditory is probably the best overall to attack.
The paper says this magic power was "abolished" under a blindfold or a longer wavelength light, but I bet there's another way to "abolish" it: ...simply have another experimenter try to replicate it, and I bet it magically goes away. haha.
"For the food association, a subject who faced toward the ambient geomagnetic north or east, depending on the experiment, was gently provided with a chocolate chip [52] (nutrient facts, S1 Table) on his/her right palm by an experimenter, and given 30 s to eat it."
They need to have a MacGyver episode where they're trapped in a cave armed with just a blue LED light and they need to figure out magnetic north to get out.
Thanks, haha. I felt that the original paper title didn’t give the result as much “holy cow wait what” punch as it deserved, glad you enjoyed the editorializing.
Editorial biasing of article titles is prohibited. Restating a title using plain language is acceptable in cases where the original wording is too long for the headline limit, and/or not good in the judgement of the submitter.
Hard to say (that’s what make p-hacking evil) but 3 variables blue light, hunger and men does raise questions for me.
I think an other study would be worth it to double check. Especially if we can artificially induce an other sense. It means we could also maybe find ways to enable it.
Also some commenters do mention blue light triggers similar things in other animals so at least that variable has prior work.
The paper cites previous work where blue light is associated with magnetoception in other species. The whole color thing really threw me off at first, too, so seeing the previous results was a little reassuring in the sense that it made the light color association seem, so to speak, less out of the blue.
