Very Bad Wizards Episode 116: Pain, Pleasure, and Peer-Reviewed Penises
9 snips
May 31, 2017 They tackle the Sokal-style hoax about conceptual penises and what it really reveals about academic publishing. They explore why 0–10 pain and pleasure ratings can mislead across different people. They describe cross-modal anchoring methods and clinical consequences like who gets pain meds. They debate masochism, childbirth effects on pain scaling, and risks of policy based on shaky subjective metrics.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Hoax Exposed Weakly Against Predatory Journals
- The “Conceptual Penis” hoax targeted a marginal publication route and thus failed to demonstrate systemic problems in gender studies.
- Tamler Sommers and David Pizarro highlight the submission was desk-rejected by a field journal then published in a pay-to-publish outlet, undermining the hoax claim.
Skeptics Show Motivated Reasoning Too
- The skeptical community's eager celebration revealed the same motivated reasoning they criticize in others.
- Pizarro and Sommers point out skeptics doubled down on the hoax narrative despite clear critiques, showing partisan confirmation bias.
Taste Test Demo Revealed Super Tasters
- David Pizarro recalls Linda Bartoshuk’s classroom demo using a bitter chemical strip to reveal three taste-sensitivity groups.
- Some students spit it out, some found it mildly bitter, and some thought it was inert, illustrating real physiological differences.