Well, presumably if working harder on their submission was their utility-maximizing choice, they would have done so already sans experimental manipulation; if any more quality time was used up, it probably came at the expense of some other activity...
It looks like I badly misunderstood your comment. When you wrote “the researchers,” I thought that was a coy way of referring to yourself in reference to the two experimental results of which I questioned the ethics.
I’m not arguing for the optimality of compliance with an IRB or other “ethical” guidelines—I’m doubtful they do a reasonable job of creating morally optimal research protocols, and they clearly prevent the discovery of certain interesting or useful results—like your results from these posts that relied on deception. And that doesn’t even account for the compliance costs that I now realize was the point of your comment. Oops
Putting in more work to get another interesting experimental result is a harm to the researcher? On what planet?
Well, presumably if working harder on their submission was their utility-maximizing choice, they would have done so already sans experimental manipulation; if any more quality time was used up, it probably came at the expense of some other activity...
It looks like I badly misunderstood your comment. When you wrote “the researchers,” I thought that was a coy way of referring to yourself in reference to the two experimental results of which I questioned the ethics.
I’m not arguing for the optimality of compliance with an IRB or other “ethical” guidelines—I’m doubtful they do a reasonable job of creating morally optimal research protocols, and they clearly prevent the discovery of certain interesting or useful results—like your results from these posts that relied on deception. And that doesn’t even account for the compliance costs that I now realize was the point of your comment. Oops