Palko points to this post by Remy Levin and writes:
JMR, a top 4 marketing journal, has issued a formal “Expression of Concern” for Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008), the infamous Ten Commandments study.
We discussed some version of that experiment a few years ago. Lots of colorful characters came up. In addition to TV star psychologist Dan Ariely, there was ultra-connected economist Andrei Shleifer, who was credibly accused of something like embezzlement, and of course there was the big irony that there was cheating in a study about cheating.
At that point I would’ve said that the irony meter had gone off the scale, had it not been for the story of Michael Shermer, the professional skeptic who, in apparent sincerity, shared the story of a haunted radio (yes, really!).
Amazingly—or not so amazingly—there’s a connection between these two denizens of the irony zone, as Shermer blurbed Ariely’s recent book. Ahhhh, celebrities!
And at this point you probably won’t be surprised to hear that both Ariely and Shermer have been involved with the notorious Edge Foundation. Funky paper shredders, magic radios, . . . can’t get much edgier than that. No schoolmarms there!
Anyway, the best comment on that Ten Commandments study came from Jonathan, back in 2018:
Where in the 10 Commandments does it say ‘don’t cheat on a matrix test?’ It isn’t murder. It isn’t sex with a married woman (because that’s what it actually says is outlawed – because that confuses parentage and causes violence). It isn’t coveting. It could be lying but was this within the confines of a honor code with meaning, like part of a college commitment, or was it just an agreement to take this test? Does the lying gain someone advantages? The point of the ‘lying’ commandment is bearing false witness, and that would be stretch. Aren’t the 10 Commandments more a lesson that little crap like this doesn’t matter, that you should not kill people, not mistreat parents or children, not steal, and not want someone else’s stuff (including wife) rather than going out and getting your own?
Good point. The Bible says nothing about shredders or psychology experiments. So, everything’s cool.
The “this post” link at the top doesn’t work. Here is a link to the expression of concern:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222437241285882
Shermer’s many unskeptical interactions with Brett Weinstein and Heather Heyer make me skeptical about his skepticism.
Heather Heyer, the woman who was murdered at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville? I think you must mean someone else.
That’s Heather Heying, who once taught biology at Evergreen State College. I actually taught a course with her, and it was fine. I had no premonition of where she would end up. (Unlike Bret, who I wouldn’t teach with, and who gave off unhinged vibes from the get go.)
Yes, Heying. Thanks. Methinks even Shermer would have been skeptical of a book recently published with Heather Heyer as co-author.
As you can see in this clip, Heather is quite good at getting a feel for “information we have not yet been able to decipher about what is to come.” She may not have yet acquired that skill when you taught with her:
https://x.com/thebadstats/status/1877128310620049826
Joshua:
Recall the Chestertonian Principle.
Whenever the topic comes to the Ten Commandments, I rather consider myself an expert on the subject. Here is what I wrote about it, years and years ago:
————————————————————————————————————
advocates of the Ten Commandments simultaneously maintain that it is not a religious symbol but rather, a representation of our common heritage and it would be government suppression of religion if the Ten Commandments were prohibited from public places. Many people have pointed out that even the number “ten” is in doubt. Various scholars have come up with 12, 17, or 22 depending on how one counts items in Exodus or Deuteronomy. Further, Jews, Catholics and Protestants differ on the sequence as well as the content of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the followers of the Ten Commandments may not even realize which particular version they are advocating.
Last year, in order to defuse the turmoil going on in Duluth between the theocrats and the secularists regarding the Ten Commandments, I proposed putting things in ordinary and bland present-day English, eliminating the mystical thees and thous of King James. As a byproduct, the number would be reduced to eight:
Be pleasant to mom and dad
Don’t mess around
Tell the truth
Take a day off
Lying about the people next door isn’t nice
Lying with the people next door isn’t nice
Blaspheming is in poor taste
Crime doesn’t pay
However, because things have heated up considerably since last year, my eight commandments might not be universally agreed upon. Consequently, I have another suggestion which avoids entirely the problem of personal interpretation or religious affiliation. Let the Ten Commandments be posted anywhere–schools, court houses, prisons–but only in the original Hebrew. This should provide religious sustenance for those who are desperately in need and may even stimulate interest in foreign languages. For those on the other side of the debate about separation of church and state, the stone tablets may be ubiquitous, but not rabble-rousing.
————————————————————————————————————————–
To put this era in focus, the loudest and most influential voice on my side of the argument was our Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura!! It is often remarked here in this blog that statistics is hard–but so is history. For all his (many, many) faults, Jesse really believed in separation of church and state and never looked over his shoulder to see which way the wind was blowing when it came to this topic.
Paul:
Sure, but Ariely grew up in Israel. They don’t have separation between church and state there.
However, Ariely has (for the moment, anyway) birthright citizenship because he was born in NYC.
As to separation of church and state in the USA, who would have imagined that Greenland rightfully belongs to the United States.
Or that the FBI would run an intelligence operation to undermine the legitimacy of a legally elected president; or that literally thousands of international criminals would be protected from expulsion by dozens of US cities; or that the very POTUS himself would pardon a man who indisputably murdered two FBI agents in cold blood; or that “the POTUS” would simply decide that a new amendment to the constitution is now the law of the land, and announce his decision in a “tweet”; or that actions taken by “the POTUS” would need to be put in quotes, since no one was sure whether the actual POTUS was aware at all, much less aware of the things being done in his name. Not that he would have disagreed with them.
Washington and all the others must be turning over in thier graves. They spent how many years at war and risking the noose so men could be called women so they can win at sports?
These are strange times!
Interestingly, beyond the fictional world of CNN, MSNBC and the donkey herd grazing on the taxpayers’ grass in the capitol, journalists are reporting that there is reason to believe that “birthright citizenship,” which we’ve all been told for generations is absolute, might not be so absolute after all. The question hinges on the language in the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the hitch. In the sense of being subject to US laws, until the recent administration everyone who sets foot within the United States was presumbed to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So why is this phrase in the statement about citizenship in the 14th Amendement at all? Obviously because sets out a condition for the phrase about citizenship to apply. And it could very well mean that “persons born or naturalized in the United States” must be legal residents of the United States for the statement of citizenship to apply.
Unfortunately I don’t have enough information to assess how this constitutional tussle might apply to the critical question at hand: is Dan Arielly truly a citizen of the United States? And if not, will he sign his deportation order at the bottom or the top?
And for goodness sakes after all that the new Camelot has succumbed to the laws of population demographics! Comically enough, he ten commandments doesn’t forbid cheating on *your* wife with prowling cougars, which I guess is what got martin, jessie and billy off the hook with the The Man.
And yet we survive and may yet prosper. I dunno, what would the Mighty Earl think of this? I think he’d dig it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJhzHgBtBqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Ao-iNPPUc
Unitl now, the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” bit has been taken to mean that children of parents with diplomatic immunity were, like their parents, taken to have said immunity and thus not subject to said jurisdiction.
Anonymous – There is in fact no “reason to believe” birthright citizenship isn’t absolute. You don’t need to believe me, liberal media, or any pundit. The relevant old Supreme Court decision is available and quite readable. Which leads to:
https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/01/23/judge-grants-was-request-to-block-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order/
“Coughenour called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” the judge told the Trump administration’s attorney. “It boggles my mind.”
We have a Ten Commandments violation, as MAGA world has been lying to you.
You might want to consider where else they have been bearing false witness.
As to Ariely, my reading of the Executive Order is that he’s likely safe since he’d already have US citizenship documents. I don’t think it revokes such documents if they’ve already been issued. Though I’m not a lawyer.
The division of the text into commandments is debated, but the number ten is attested to by the text. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Terminology In all sources, the terms are translatable as “the ten words”, “the ten sayings”, or “the ten matters”
– one speculation based on this is that the original list was a list of lterally just ten words – perhaps as a mnemonic – which was later fleshed out into the text we see today.
Paul –
Sorry to be a party pooper, but I count four commandments and four opinions. And “The Four Opinions” sounds like a reference to the Beatles. So let’s convert them to commandments.
5. Obey the law.
6. Respect religions.
7. Control yourself.
8. Stop reading posters on the wall and pay attention.
(That last one is best suited for schools and courthouses.)
John N-G: As always, I am willing to compromise. Break up your last one into two pieces:
8. Stop reading posters on the wall.
9. Pay attention.
So, halfway there. In order to get to the magical 10,
10. Recognize Danish sovereignty over Greenland.
Speaking of cheating:
https://siliconreckoner.substack.com/p/the-frontier-math-scandal