Asklemmy

44697 readers

925 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

123

What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by comfy@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Wikipedia defines common sense as "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument"

Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they're a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I listed it because it's one of the things I would sworn by too having seen it first hand. However when you conduct a double blind experiment, kids still get excited at parties / treats / days out / when their friends are over when there's no sugar in the treats.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-does-sugar-make-children-hyperactive

In otherwords as parents we massively underestimate how excited or crazy kids can get just because they're excited and not because of something in their bloodstream..

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That may be the case. I will need to conduct my own research^^

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Make sure it's a blind test ;)

[–] ArcticPrincess@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The claim and evidence here are not logically consistent.

It's like saying "cyanide won't make you dead" because, look "people still get dead from falling and crocodiles, even if there's no cyanide around".

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

no, it's not. it's a meta analysis of multiple double blind studies. multiple

“For the children described as sugar-sensitive, there were no significant differences among the three diets in any of 39 behavioral and cognitive variables. For the preschool children, only 4 of the 31 measures differed significantly among the three diets, and there was no consistent pattern in the differences that were observed.”

if you did the same with cyanide you would be able to conclude that "taking cyanide and being dead is positively correlated" even if there were other causes of death. in this wide summary of multiple double blind experiements, there is no correlation between sugar intake and child behaviour. that's not to say kids don't act up and get hyper, but it's other causes, most signficantly parents just underestimate how hard kids find it to regulate themselves when having treats of any sort (non-sugar included) or being in a party atmosphere with friends.