> For their first experiment, Tang and McBeath paired up the volunteers and had them sit across from each other at a table, with a barrier between them so one could not see the other. Every time a light flashed at random intervals, the subjects would touch a sensor on the back of the other person's left hand as quickly as they could. Then each one would push a button indicating if they thought they had touched the other person's hand first.

When a ball is sent out of bounds, it can glance off of you, and them may or may not touch the opponent before ending up out of bounds. You can feel it hitting you, but don't feel the opposite. Which is unlike the experiment where your hand is touched and you touch the opponent's hand. How in the world are those comparable?

> Granted, this was a small, highly selective sample size: sixteen undergraduate students (11 females and five males), asked to repeat the task 50 times ... "Even with our relatively small sample size, we still find this a very high effect size. There's a very low probability that this would happen by chance."

A great example of what can be an interesting topic to discuss, but in no way means anything.

> We have identified what may be a principal cause of arguments in ball games.

Additionally, and more importantly, we don't know whether or not the players arguing for possession actually believe it went off of the opponent, and why they believe it went out off the opponent. So many times the arguments in the NBA are to get an edge in the future, in the way of a makeup call, or a general sense of getting the refs to feel they owe their team a call.

Side note, I love watching the NBA, and unlike most people, the refs are incredibly good with all the continuous action.