[eldavido]

Sorry you were triggered...

On a more serious note, I don't think personal sensibility is a good reason not to perform an experiment, or publish something. The main test should be, "is it true"? And, "What does the evidence show"?

A good reason might be if the subjects' rights were somehow violated, which IRB reviews in academic science are designed to prevent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board). Human experimentation is, in general, a highly regulated endeavor.

I strongly object to not doing science, or some kind of investigation, because one person finds it "disgusting". I think this attitude is getting more common, despite its harms.

[panarky]

I strongly object to doing whatever the fuck you want with no regard for social or political consequences.

There's an attitude that anything goes short of violating an individual's rights, even if your actions do collective damage.

Anyone who disagrees or resists this nihilistic attitude is then denigrated as weak-minded, "triggered" or insufficiently masculine.

I think this attitude is getting more common, despite its harms.

[zaphar]

One benefit of this study is that people who are made aware of it may be more conscious of their bias when shopping. This could mitigate the effects. The act of doing the study could have positive effects depending on what the study is used for after.

The study itself didn't harm anyone. It just measured an effect by changing a variable. The information it produced could produce positive change or it could produce negative change.

[eldavido]

Ok, two questions.

1. What are the "social or political consequences" of this study? Can you explain those? Or perhaps clarify the asserted "collective damage"?

2. How do you weigh the benefits of better understanding against "collective damage" or "social or political consequences"?

These are real questions we have to answer as we make policy about research. I start from the position that more complete understanding of behavior/psychology is a good thing. There are times when human rights might stop scientific inquiry, but in my mind, the bar for that has to be set pretty high, because it's hard to know in advance what progress might come from better understanding.

In any case, I don't think taste or personal repugnance should have any bearing on scientific inquiry. "Rights" in the deontological sense perhaps, or breaking laws, but not taste.

[UncleEntity]

Tricking people shopping for status items into buying higher priced status items does "collective damage"?

I'm failing to see who's the victim here.

--edit--

This actually reminds me of one of my sister's stories; one of her college roommates was running late so just put her hair up in a ponytail and made noticeably better tips that night than she usually did at her bartending job so what do you suppose she did as a result of this observation?

[joejerryronnie]

> what do you suppose she did as a result of this observation?

Ran double-blind controlled experiments published to a peer reviewed journal?

[tedunangst]

Returned the extra money to the unfairly manipulated customers?