Try It Yourself - Click Anything to Edit!
A Hypothesis I Want to Test (And You Should Too)
I have this theory - completely unproven - that absurdly specific metrics have zero short-term detrimental effects and might actually be winners. Like when someone says “32.347x improvement,” sure, eventually you think “bullshit.” But that first millisecond? Your brain registered “massive improvement” before skepticism kicked in. Here’s my hypothesis: Outlandish bullshit claims have zero effect on short-term credibility and will actually boost the performance of anyone using them. Why does this work? Most people scrolling social media aren’t in their peak analytical state. They’re on autopilot - thumb moving, dopamine hunting, pattern-matching against familiar formats. The average user spends 2.5 hours daily in this semi-conscious scroll state, where the brain processes visual hierarchy and social signals faster than actual content. They see upvotes before words, formatting before facts. By the time critical thinking kicks in, they’ve already had an emotional reaction - and that first reaction is what drives engagement. This is why misinformation spreads 6x faster than corrections; the primitive brain has already decided before the prefrontal cortex even shows up to work. Use the tool above to test this. Make something obviously fake. See if people’s first reaction happens before their skepticism kicks in.How to Use This Tool
🎨 Make It Your Own
Click on any text, number, or metric in the mockups above to edit them in real-time. It’s a fully interactive playground where you can:- Edit the content: Click on any post text to rewrite it with your message
- Adjust the metrics: Change upvotes, likes, comments to match your goals
- Modify user details: Update usernames, timestamps, and titles
- Toggle interactions: Click the upvote/downvote buttons on Reddit to see them change color
Psychological Experiments Worth Running
1. The “Wrong on Purpose” Test
Hypothesis: Being slightly wrong generates more engagement than being right. The experiment: Post “JavaScript is basically Python” vs “Introduction to JavaScript” Why this might work: People love correcting others. It’s dopamine for nerds. Why this might backfire: You look like an idiot. Your credibility tanks. Was it worth the engagement? Advanced test: Put the error in a Reddit title (can’t be edited), then correct yourself in comments. Does this double engagement or just make people ignore you?2. The Curiosity Gap Experiment
I think (but haven’t proven) that incomplete information creates almost physical discomfort. Test it: “The founder of Google just told me the one metric that matters…” and bury the answer three paragraphs down. Measure: How many people click “see more”? How many rage-quit before finding the answer? Counter-hypothesis: People are so used to clickbait they’ve developed immunity. This might just annoy them.3. The Artificial Scarcity Play
Theory: “Accidentally public for 24 hours” beats “Free download” every time. Your test: Same content, two frames. Which gets more clicks? Why I might be full of it: People are wise to fake scarcity. This could trigger “scam” detectors instead of desire. The real experiment: Track not just clicks but follow-through. Do people actually consume “accidentally leaked” content more? Here’s my challenge to you: Use the mockup tool above to create the most absurd-but-plausible claim you can think of. Post it in a familiar format. See what happens. My hypothesis: If you wrap insane claims in familiar UI, people’s brains process the format before the content. You get a few seconds of credibility borrowed from Reddit/X/LinkedIn’s design language. Examples to try:- “I increased conversion rates 847% by adding comic sans” (on LinkedIn)
- “JavaScript is deprecating variables in 2025” (on Reddit)
- “Elon Musk just DMed me about buying MySpace” (on X)
- Initial belief (0-500ms): “This looks real”
- Cognitive dissonance (500-2000ms): “Wait, what?”
- Decision point (2000ms+): Engage to debunk, or scroll past?
- Best case: You discover how gullible people really are
- Worst case: You get roasted in the comments (still engagement!)
- Most likely: You learn exactly where the believability threshold is
- What claim did you make?
- What platform format did you use?
- How long before someone called BS?
- Did anyone believe it unironically?