5 ms·

> Researchers at Curtin University in Australia observed 20 participants working at standing desks for two hours.

Moodles 9y ago
Hah, next. Reminds me of this: https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choc...
- tw1010 9y ago
  That's amazing. Grey hat hacking for social good. Sometimes you need to exploit the inefficiencies you're bothered by to illustrate their weakness, which hopefully makes society patch it up.
ekianjo 9y ago
The standard for pushing papers in social sciences is as low as ever.
- radarsat1 9y ago
  Back pain study. How is this "social sciences"?
  - fao_ 9y ago
    They can't describe their back pain mathematically /s
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Back pain is pretty hard to quantify. A lot of perception involved rather than actual physiology. (most of the time you don't see any actual back problem when doing clinical investigation, at least nothing noticeable with typical methods).
sureaboutthis 9y ago
Do you have a link to a better researched paper?
- z0ltan 9y ago
  Can you be less of a passive-aggressive entitled little twat?
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Traditionally, claims of a specific effect are treated skeptically until adequate evidence is given, and the burden of producing that evidence falls to the people making the claim. This, of course, goes both ways when it comes to the standing desk question.
perlgeek 9y ago
small sample size, no control, laughable time span -- why are we talking about this study?
- red75prime 9y ago
  > laughable time span Maybe participants refused to stand more?
- tzs 9y ago
  None of those are inherently fatal, either alone or in combination. To illustrate, imagine I did a study where I took 20 people, subjected them to a 10 minute ice bath, followed by a chest X-ray, and then put them naked in a steel cage and lowered the cage to the bottom of a swimming pool for 20 minutes (yes, the pool is full of water). Study participants are not told beforehand that they will be going into water. And suppose further that 9 of them are still alive when I pull them out of the water. Not only are they alive, they are conscious, alert, and show no ill effects from 20 minutes underwater. That would be a study worth talking about despite the sample size and lack of control and short time span. Those would not be a fatal problems because we already know a lot about what happens to humans in general who spend 20 minutes without diving equipment underwater. We have a good idea of what the probability is for a human to survive such a thing, and can estimate the probability that my sample included 9 such people. It would be close to zero. Heck, even if I had the misfortune of accidentally getting my sample at a free diving competition the chances that I'd get 9 people who could hold their breaths for 20 minutes would be very low.
  - behindmyscreen 9y ago
    From a knowledge building perspective, this study is not helpful. All this does is show that maybe there is something to look at in a more well funded study.
    - tzs 9y ago
      > All this does is show that maybe there is something to look at in a more well funded study. That's what lies at the start of almost all knowledge in science.
epaga 9y ago
Two hours?! Flagged the post.

Hah, next. Reminds me of this: https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choc...

tw1010 9y ago
That's amazing. Grey hat hacking for social good. Sometimes you need to exploit the inefficiencies you're bothered by to illustrate their weakness, which hopefully makes society patch it up.

ekianjo 9y ago

The standard for pushing papers in social sciences is as low as ever.

radarsat1 9y ago
Back pain study. How is this "social sciences"?
- fao_ 9y ago
  They can't describe their back pain mathematically /s
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Back pain is pretty hard to quantify. A lot of perception involved rather than actual physiology. (most of the time you don't see any actual back problem when doing clinical investigation, at least nothing noticeable with typical methods).

sureaboutthis 9y ago

Do you have a link to a better researched paper?

z0ltan 9y ago
Can you be less of a passive-aggressive entitled little twat?
mannykannot 9y ago
Traditionally, claims of a specific effect are treated skeptically until adequate evidence is given, and the burden of producing that evidence falls to the people making the claim. This, of course, goes both ways when it comes to the standing desk question.

perlgeek 9y ago

small sample size, no control, laughable time span -- why are we talking about this study?

red75prime 9y ago
> laughable time span Maybe participants refused to stand more?
tzs 9y ago
None of those are inherently fatal, either alone or in combination. To illustrate, imagine I did a study where I took 20 people, subjected them to a 10 minute ice bath, followed by a chest X-ray, and then put them naked in a steel cage and lowered the cage to the bottom of a swimming pool for 20 minutes (yes, the pool is full of water). Study participants are not told beforehand that they will be going into water. And suppose further that 9 of them are still alive when I pull them out of the water. Not only are they alive, they are conscious, alert, and show no ill effects from 20 minutes underwater. That would be a study worth talking about despite the sample size and lack of control and short time span. Those would not be a fatal problems because we already know a lot about what happens to humans in general who spend 20 minutes without diving equipment underwater. We have a good idea of what the probability is for a human to survive such a thing, and can estimate the probability that my sample included 9 such people. It would be close to zero. Heck, even if I had the misfortune of accidentally getting my sample at a free diving competition the chances that I'd get 9 people who could hold their breaths for 20 minutes would be very low.
- behindmyscreen 9y ago
  From a knowledge building perspective, this study is not helpful. All this does is show that maybe there is something to look at in a more well funded study.
  - tzs 9y ago
    > All this does is show that maybe there is something to look at in a more well funded study. That's what lies at the start of almost all knowledge in science.

epaga 9y ago

Two hours?! Flagged the post.