This is so awesome! We need to bring back dumb studies especially with kids! In my own little life I was previously paid to be a "Scientist" and also I have people in my family who are antivaxers who decided I was not to be trusted because I was a scientist. (Or maybe it was because I studied plants and microbes?)
I wish, in our current political landscape, scientists weren't considered elitist and therefore capitalists and untrustworthy (although some of them are). I've spent a lot of time trying to tell people that "science" is a basic trait of being human. What happens when I try adding balsamic vinegar to the potatoes? (Blech) Which toys does the dog like best? (the plushy squeaky ones that are fun to destroy) As humans we are experimenting every day in little ways we don't even notice. I believe it's part of our creativity.
There's a good neuroscientific explanation for why people wouldn't want to eat straight salt. At low concentrations of salt, salty taste receptors are activated, but at high salt concentrations, bitter and sour taste receptors are also activated. (See https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11905 for some of the original research.) As far as I know, there's not a similar aversive effect for high concentrations of sugar.
Love this one! In the wake of the replication crisis, we need to make sure people continue to run dumb studies. That's probably the only way to learn stuff anyway.
> somehow every party I host ends up with 23 people at it
My late grandmother grew up in St. Petersburg before the Russian revolution. She claimed that in Russia, there was no particular superstition surrounding the number 13, except as it pertained to having 13 people around a table (this was considered bad luck due to Judas Iscariot being the 13th person at the Last Supper). Anyway, my grandmother said that there were professional guests available at a moment's notice, should your dinner party inadvertently end up with 13 attendees. Good work if you can get it.
I can confirm that Gatorade tastes better after a run on a hot day. Having run more than a few long-distance races in sometimes absurdly hot weather, I can attest that salty foods are absolutely delicious when most of your body's electrolytes are stuck to the outside of your skin. Small boiled potatoes dipped in salt would be just gross in normal life, but halfway through a hot ultramarathon? Better than candy.
(1) participants were early oenology *students* and not wine tasting experts ("early semester students fail at a task" sounds not as great as experts... - it takes many years to become proficient);
(2) it was forced choice, so students were not able say "hey something is wrong here and does not align". People, especially students, being susceptible to following a task design against better knowledge is a different psychological effect than 'wine tasters are bullshitters'
(3) liking a wine is not the same as quality assessment - I like trashy glam rock despite *knowing* that -and why- it fades against high quality crafted musical scores, but I *like* it more.
The whole thing is badly designed clickbait research that has become an "urban science legend" retold because it feels like a fun story.
I originally wrote this as "experts" but changed it to "enthusiasts" because, as you point out, the participants weren't experts. I'm not aware of studies that tested experts specifically, but would be interested if you know of any.
Appreciate it. There are some good cognitive science and neuroscience studies showing, for instance, how olfactory training and expertise does affect participant's grey and white matter in selected cortical areas. I can find the references for you (but none of them are "debunking" studies but looking at domain general/specific expertise and its cortical effects and behavioral skills). Some really cool stuff happening in olfaction these days. I wrote about the wine thing briefly here (I don't work on wine - no one told me you could when I was young!... but the sense of smell more generally): https://proto.life/2020/09/how-to-change-your-mind-over-a-glass-of-wine/
Maybe. But I'm reminded of this quote from humorist Joel Stein: "When wine drinkers tell me they taste notes of cherries, tobacco and rose petals, usually all I can detect is a whole lot of jackass."
i won't respond to further comments on this from now on. It was merely intended as a corrective to a methodologically misleading study, but unfortunately elicits not "huh, that is interesting, maybe the issue is more complex" responses but more "I still don't buy it because it fits my views". What a shame given the nature of this blog.
I saw this program on Swedish TV, SVT, called Fråga Lund (ask Lund, Lund being a (university) city). They tested that both experts and regular people couldn't tell "good" wine from bad and referred to bigger studies saying the same.
Got a reference to these studies? Possibly includes the very same I just noted as junk science. Most of these studies are surprisingly badly done but make for good television and storytelling. I get these kinds of responses repeatedly, and they always refer to some TV program or similar.
Apologies if I sound grumpy, but that is what I am about this issue at this point.
I was wondering when a wine officianado would come to object to this, LOL.
True story: I'm a social/personality psychologist who, with a colleague, decided to do a study on wine-tasting. After looking up some research and taking some notes, I reached out to a University professor of oenology to ask him a few specific questions as a colleague, to which he replied,
"I don't think I should be asked to do your work for you. You can look up our research and find these answers yourself."
...Which is exactly what I should have guessed in advance that a professor of oenology would say.
It's irritating that the "replication crisis" is concentrated in a few fields, yet people who want to dunk on science claim vacuously that it applies it to all of the sciences.
This is so awesome! We need to bring back dumb studies especially with kids! In my own little life I was previously paid to be a "Scientist" and also I have people in my family who are antivaxers who decided I was not to be trusted because I was a scientist. (Or maybe it was because I studied plants and microbes?)
I wish, in our current political landscape, scientists weren't considered elitist and therefore capitalists and untrustworthy (although some of them are). I've spent a lot of time trying to tell people that "science" is a basic trait of being human. What happens when I try adding balsamic vinegar to the potatoes? (Blech) Which toys does the dog like best? (the plushy squeaky ones that are fun to destroy) As humans we are experimenting every day in little ways we don't even notice. I believe it's part of our creativity.
There's a good neuroscientific explanation for why people wouldn't want to eat straight salt. At low concentrations of salt, salty taste receptors are activated, but at high salt concentrations, bitter and sour taste receptors are also activated. (See https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11905 for some of the original research.) As far as I know, there's not a similar aversive effect for high concentrations of sugar.
Super helpful, thank you!
please more dumb studies. i was literally laughing out loud (also learned many things). 'pointlessness is worse than pain' was particularly poignant.
Ditto
Love this one! In the wake of the replication crisis, we need to make sure people continue to run dumb studies. That's probably the only way to learn stuff anyway.
Am I the only one who thinks 408 Twix Minis is the greatest way to go out?
> somehow every party I host ends up with 23 people at it
My late grandmother grew up in St. Petersburg before the Russian revolution. She claimed that in Russia, there was no particular superstition surrounding the number 13, except as it pertained to having 13 people around a table (this was considered bad luck due to Judas Iscariot being the 13th person at the Last Supper). Anyway, my grandmother said that there were professional guests available at a moment's notice, should your dinner party inadvertently end up with 13 attendees. Good work if you can get it.
I loved this so much! Perfect commute read
I believe 23 ppl is the amount you need to get in a room such that there’s a 50% chance 2 share a birthday
If you can't prove the birthday paradox, it ain't a party
But why not mixed salt and sugar?
Maybe I’ll try it while fixing dinner.
Uh oh, Thomas Young has some competition!
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Man-Who-Knew-Everything/dp/0465072925
Hahaha amazing, thank you for this
funniest thing i've read in a while. Thanks! Seriously, lemon-lime baby food? Love it.
I loved this one, thank you !
Dear Adam,
These are FUN studies!
I like this takeaway a lot: "Feeling pointless might hurt worse than feeling pain."
Thanks for sharing!
Love
Myq
PS How are YOUR taste buds at differentiating sugar and salt?
I can confirm that Gatorade tastes better after a run on a hot day. Having run more than a few long-distance races in sometimes absurdly hot weather, I can attest that salty foods are absolutely delicious when most of your body's electrolytes are stuck to the outside of your skin. Small boiled potatoes dipped in salt would be just gross in normal life, but halfway through a hot ultramarathon? Better than candy.
The "wine tasting is junk" study is... junk:
(1) participants were early oenology *students* and not wine tasting experts ("early semester students fail at a task" sounds not as great as experts... - it takes many years to become proficient);
(2) it was forced choice, so students were not able say "hey something is wrong here and does not align". People, especially students, being susceptible to following a task design against better knowledge is a different psychological effect than 'wine tasters are bullshitters'
(3) liking a wine is not the same as quality assessment - I like trashy glam rock despite *knowing* that -and why- it fades against high quality crafted musical scores, but I *like* it more.
The whole thing is badly designed clickbait research that has become an "urban science legend" retold because it feels like a fun story.
I originally wrote this as "experts" but changed it to "enthusiasts" because, as you point out, the participants weren't experts. I'm not aware of studies that tested experts specifically, but would be interested if you know of any.
Appreciate it. There are some good cognitive science and neuroscience studies showing, for instance, how olfactory training and expertise does affect participant's grey and white matter in selected cortical areas. I can find the references for you (but none of them are "debunking" studies but looking at domain general/specific expertise and its cortical effects and behavioral skills). Some really cool stuff happening in olfaction these days. I wrote about the wine thing briefly here (I don't work on wine - no one told me you could when I was young!... but the sense of smell more generally): https://proto.life/2020/09/how-to-change-your-mind-over-a-glass-of-wine/
(Will link to expert studies later.)
Maybe. But I'm reminded of this quote from humorist Joel Stein: "When wine drinkers tell me they taste notes of cherries, tobacco and rose petals, usually all I can detect is a whole lot of jackass."
People like their just-so stories, I guess.
i won't respond to further comments on this from now on. It was merely intended as a corrective to a methodologically misleading study, but unfortunately elicits not "huh, that is interesting, maybe the issue is more complex" responses but more "I still don't buy it because it fits my views". What a shame given the nature of this blog.
For those who actually are interested: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674278721
I saw this program on Swedish TV, SVT, called Fråga Lund (ask Lund, Lund being a (university) city). They tested that both experts and regular people couldn't tell "good" wine from bad and referred to bigger studies saying the same.
Got a reference to these studies? Possibly includes the very same I just noted as junk science. Most of these studies are surprisingly badly done but make for good television and storytelling. I get these kinds of responses repeatedly, and they always refer to some TV program or similar.
Apologies if I sound grumpy, but that is what I am about this issue at this point.
If you are interested in the science of smell, including olfactory expertise: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674278721
I was wondering when a wine officianado would come to object to this, LOL.
True story: I'm a social/personality psychologist who, with a colleague, decided to do a study on wine-tasting. After looking up some research and taking some notes, I reached out to a University professor of oenology to ask him a few specific questions as a colleague, to which he replied,
"I don't think I should be asked to do your work for you. You can look up our research and find these answers yourself."
...Which is exactly what I should have guessed in advance that a professor of oenology would say.
Have you offered them to be a co-author?
(Not a wine aficionado, but someone working on olfaction.)
It's irritating that the "replication crisis" is concentrated in a few fields, yet people who want to dunk on science claim vacuously that it applies it to all of the sciences.