Common sense is not that common: a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania concludes the concept is “somewhat illusory.” Researchers collected statements from various sources that had been described as “common sense” and put them to test subjects. The mixed bag of results suggested there was “little evidence that more than a small fraction of beliefs is common to more than a small fraction of people.”
It’s no surprise that there are few universally shared notions of what stands to reason. People took a horse worming drug to cure COVID! They think low-traffic neighborhoods are a communist plot and call the police about KFC running out of chicken! We all think those other guys are the stupid ones.
If you would like to test your own common sense, the Pennsylvania researchers are running an online challenge (commonsense.seas.upenn.edu). Despite dark suspicions about my common sense, I was compelled to try, agreeing or disagreeing with statements, then deciding whether others would think like me.
Photo: EPA-EFE
Some were easy (“No one wants to get ill;” “Glue is sticky”), but some gave ample opportunity to overthink and second guess myself. Surely it isn’t silly to end a marriage if you don’t love someone? Is “loving people more than they deserve” an “aspect of kindness?”
How am I supposed to know anything about the body temperature of cats?
The worst bit was the maths (designed to check if intelligence and common sense are correlated — not particularly, apparently). I’m 49 and haven’t worked out two-thirds of anything since 1992: I had to draw 60 apples to stumble through a simple fraction, guess the full price for a discounted toaster and text my son for help. That exchange ended with me begging him: “Pretend this never happened.”
The verdict? A feeble 53/100 on the “commonsensicality” index (maths score undisclosed). Unwilling to accept my worst mark since year 10 physics, I tried again. And again. By the fifth attempt (yes, a total waste of my time), I had bumped my score up to 97/100. That is a victory for something, but definitely not common sense.
June 2 to June 8 Taiwan’s woodcutters believe that if they see even one speck of red in their cooked rice, no matter how small, an accident is going to happen. Peng Chin-tian (彭錦田) swears that this has proven to be true at every stop during his decades-long career in the logging industry. Along with mining, timber harvesting was once considered the most dangerous profession in Taiwan. Not only were mishaps common during all stages of processing, it was difficult to transport the injured to get medical treatment. Many died during the arduous journey. Peng recounts some of his accidents in
“Why does Taiwan identity decline?”a group of researchers lead by University of Nevada political scientist Austin Wang (王宏恩) asked in a recent paper. After all, it is not difficult to explain the rise in Taiwanese identity after the early 1990s. But no model predicted its decline during the 2016-2018 period, they say. After testing various alternative explanations, Wang et al argue that the fall-off in Taiwanese identity during that period is related to voter hedging based on the performance of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Since the DPP is perceived as the guardian of Taiwan identity, when it performs well,
A short walk beneath the dense Amazon canopy, the forest abruptly opens up. Fallen logs are rotting, the trees grow sparser and the temperature rises in places sunlight hits the ground. This is what 24 years of severe drought looks like in the world’s largest rainforest. But this patch of degraded forest, about the size of a soccer field, is a scientific experiment. Launched in 2000 by Brazilian and British scientists, Esecaflor — short for “Forest Drought Study Project” in Portuguese — set out to simulate a future in which the changing climate could deplete the Amazon of rainfall. It is
The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on May 18 held a rally in Taichung to mark the anniversary of President William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20. The title of the rally could be loosely translated to “May 18 recall fraudulent goods” (518退貨ㄌㄨㄚˋ！). Unlike in English, where the terms are the same, “recall” (退貨) in this context refers to product recalls due to damaged, defective or fraudulent merchandise, not the political recalls (罷免) currently dominating the headlines. I attended the rally to determine if the impression was correct that the TPP under party Chairman Huang Kuo-Chang (黃國昌) had little of a
RSS