this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
515 points (94.3% liked)

Comic Strips

18117 readers
1346 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cavemanfreak@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I'm quite miffed that the order of the comparisons in the second panel vary..

  1. Bad vs good
  2. Good vs bad
  3. Good vs bad
  4. Good vs bad
  5. Bad vs good
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (10 children)

I think that's intentional. It's swapped in the first panel too. It appears more impartial this way.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

No it doesn't

For anyone sad enough to buy anything these muppets say, Google 'cognitive priming'

Edit oh and how they've edited their comment to have ridiculous whataboutism in it, such as "hey, replication crisis exists, no theres actually zero science anywhere".

edit2 based on the downvotes, Vanja is mad

Aside from the ridiculousness of reading anything malicious in an unordered comparison list...

In 2012, a great amount of priming research was thrown into doubt as part of the replication crisis. Many of the landmark studies that found effects of priming were unable to be replicated in new trials using the same mechanisms.[10] The experimenter effect may have allowed the people running the experiments to subtly influence them to reach the desired result, and publication bias tended to mean that shocking and positive results were seen as interesting and more likely to be published than studies that failed to show any effect of priming. The result is that the efficacy of priming may have been greatly overstated in earlier literature, or have been entirely illusory.[11][12]

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)