[jolincost]

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

[bcdarwin]

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).

[edit: you can even p-hack and retroactively justify your way to entire subfields; see famously https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...]

[dumpsterdiver]

> 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.

[jolincost]

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.

[thatcat]

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.

[bcdarwin]

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.

[jolincost]

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

[throwaway2245]

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.

[f430]

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.

[KMag]

> 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?

[bcdarwin]

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.]

[folli]

I don't think humans are considered a crepuscular or nocturnal species. Furthermore, birds are not mammals.

[KMag]

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.

[anticensor]

Crepuscular or nocturnal humans do exist.

[eloff]

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.

Not to mention, not much blue light at night.

[jolincost]

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.

[eloff]

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.

[jolincost]

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."

[eloff]

All that hot air and you didn't put any evidence forward. I'm open minded, but you're not giving me anything to work with here.

[jolincost]

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.

[scoutt]

I don't know... A human has no chance alone in the open, under low light conditions, against a big feline...

[jolincost]

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.

[scoutt]

> 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.

[jolincost]

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.

[stretchcat]

There's a lot more blue light during the day than at night.

[dumpsterdiver]

I upvoted you only because you said, "Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true."

[jolincost]

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.

[camjohnson26]

Evolutionary psychology in action. P hack a result and then backfill hypothetical stories of why the behavior evolved.

[jolincost]

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

[camjohnson26]

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.