Bits of advice I wish I had known

Re:Bits of advice I wish I had known by justinjlynn on Thursday May 05, 2022 @12:19AM (#31269415)

What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bits of advice I wish I had known by Dylan16807 on Thursday May 05, 2022 @03:33AM (#31270619)

> What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury?

I agree with this statement. Assume a risk.

> I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful.

Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

> You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm.

I am not saying that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bits of advice I wish I had known by justinjlynn on Thursday May 05, 2022 @03:09PM (#31277290)

> Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

What null hypothesis would you prefer?

> I am not saying that.

Then what are you saying?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bits of advice I wish I had known by Dylan16807 on Thursday May 05, 2022 @05:15PM (#31278497)

> What null hypothesis would you prefer?

"It has no lasting effects", probably.

And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects.

"It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis.

> Then what are you saying?

That you shouldn't assume it is harmful.

I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach.

But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...

[ Parent | on HN ]