28 ms·

The approach taken in writing the book was not scientific. There were no studies to determine if the phrases and methodology actually work better than a placebo

by natep 16y ago

The approach taken in writing the book was not scientific. There were no studies to determine if the phrases and methodology actually work better than a placebo (whatever that would be...lorem ipsum?). It's possible that this approach is no better than anything else, and it only seems to have a positive effect on people because it's what they happened to be doing. Not being scientific doesn't mean it doesn't work. Plenty of tools and techniques have been invented and developed without science that turn out to be effective when subjected to scientific analysis (example: many plants used for medicinal purposes). It seems to me, though, that many more turn out to be hogwash (examples: many plants used for medicinal purposes, blood-letting, homeopathy, prayer-as-treatment). In short, P(tool developed w/ science is effective) > P(tool developed w/o science is effective), and I don't know of a methodology more effective than science for determining the effectiveness of a tool or technique.

akkartik 16y ago
P(tool developed w/ science is effective) > P(tool developed w/o science is effective) Agreed, but there was no claim to science, at least from the description. To me the original article seemed to air an opinion. Asking 'where's the science?' is akin to asking for proof, which makes no sense when we're discussing opinions. To me, "it's unproven" is just unfavorable opinion without articulating reasons. So I don't think it should get a vote in edw's comment :) (upvoted you, btw. You were at -1. Downvoting such a high-quality comment is a classic example of voting by agreement. I think I'm going to start a site highlighting the stupidest votes on HN everyday..)
- natep 16y ago
  > You were at -1 Thanks. This isn't the first time I've made a thoughtful reply to a "science isn't important" comment. The last time, my comment didn't get as many upvotes as its parent, so I'm not too surprised that my comment wasn't received well this time, either. To you, "it's unproven" is not a valid reason for rejecting this book. But it is a valid reason for many other people, especially since it takes a great deal of commitment to use this (unproven) tool. Full disclosure, I just bought the book :) Would still really like to see it proven effective by science, but am not putting the burden of proof on anyone in particular (original author is dead) nor holding my breath.
  - akkartik 16y ago
    "Would still really like to see it proven effective by science.." Absolutely. Proven or disproven, or more likely a more nuanced picture will emerge of when repetition works. I think of science as this wavefront that lags the frontiers of what we work on. But it'll get here eventually.
joe_the_user 16y ago
I don't know of any scientific studies which the best type of broom to sweep a hallway with or the best hammer to hit a nail into a piece of wood with. Yet somehow I've managed to use these tool. I don't know of scientific studies showing the effectiveness of repeated affirmations (though I'd suspect there are some). They still seem like a very plausible tool. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By that token, there are some claims so ordinary that they only require the ordinary evidence of experience.
- natep 16y ago
  You haven't heard of ConsumerReports.org? Edit: go ahead and make decisions based on whatever criteria you feel is appropriate. Nobody has the time to read peer-reviewed journals on everything, and at some point you have to rely on the recommendations of your friends or people with the relevant expertise. You may feel that these techniques are equivalent to a spade or broom or hammer, but others may feel it's a large time commitment they would not otherwise make, or be too close to the realm of psychology/medicine, and require more than just "Works for me!" before trying it themselves. As I said before, the lack of science didn't stop me either.
ryanwaggoner 16y ago
I completely agree, and I would love to see some evidence like this, one way or another. However, I'm not going to avoid trying it out in the absence of scientific evidence. That's just not an effective way to live, and we have an array of tools to evaluate things where science hasn't yet poked its nose. For example, if someone posts a link to a library or framework that they really enjoyed and found useful in a project, we don't avoid it until we find a study comparing it to a control group. No, we try it out, we look at the advice of those we trust, we look at what others have done with it, etc. There are more questions in the world than science can ever hope to address, and sometimes you have to make a decision with limited information.
- gcheong 16y ago
  There are plenty of things that science has shown can work in the areas of motivation, discipline, etc., that one would think it would at least make sense to look there first.
  - natep 16y ago
    Is "plenty of things" enough to post a link to some? Do you practice any of these things? Otherwise, your comment does not add much to the discussion (and hence the down votes, I think).
    - gcheong 16y ago
      I did in another comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938239 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938239, and anyone with rudimentary Google skills should be able to find others, but my comment here is that in this area there are so many things put forth as useful with no evidence but that this is also an area where many people doing real science are finding things of practical use that it's probably better to start by seeing what those people have found first and trying that. It is not, as the OP suggest, a place where "science has not yet poked its nose". Do I have to provide links to cancer treatments shown to work before recommending people try experimental treatments only as a last resort?
- 16y ago

by natep 16y ago

akkartik 16y ago

P(tool developed w/ science is effective) > P(tool developed w/o science is effective) Agreed, but there was no claim to science, at least from the description. To me the original article seemed to air an opinion. Asking 'where's the science?' is akin to asking for proof, which makes no sense when we're discussing opinions. To me, "it's unproven" is just unfavorable opinion without articulating reasons. So I don't think it should get a vote in edw's comment :) (upvoted you, btw. You were at -1. Downvoting such a high-quality comment is a classic example of voting by agreement. I think I'm going to start a site highlighting the stupidest votes on HN everyday..)

natep 16y ago
> You were at -1 Thanks. This isn't the first time I've made a thoughtful reply to a "science isn't important" comment. The last time, my comment didn't get as many upvotes as its parent, so I'm not too surprised that my comment wasn't received well this time, either. To you, "it's unproven" is not a valid reason for rejecting this book. But it is a valid reason for many other people, especially since it takes a great deal of commitment to use this (unproven) tool. Full disclosure, I just bought the book :) Would still really like to see it proven effective by science, but am not putting the burden of proof on anyone in particular (original author is dead) nor holding my breath.
- akkartik 16y ago
  "Would still really like to see it proven effective by science.." Absolutely. Proven or disproven, or more likely a more nuanced picture will emerge of when repetition works. I think of science as this wavefront that lags the frontiers of what we work on. But it'll get here eventually.

joe_the_user 16y ago

I don't know of any scientific studies which the best type of broom to sweep a hallway with or the best hammer to hit a nail into a piece of wood with. Yet somehow I've managed to use these tool. I don't know of scientific studies showing the effectiveness of repeated affirmations (though I'd suspect there are some). They still seem like a very plausible tool. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By that token, there are some claims so ordinary that they only require the ordinary evidence of experience.

natep 16y ago
You haven't heard of ConsumerReports.org? Edit: go ahead and make decisions based on whatever criteria you feel is appropriate. Nobody has the time to read peer-reviewed journals on everything, and at some point you have to rely on the recommendations of your friends or people with the relevant expertise. You may feel that these techniques are equivalent to a spade or broom or hammer, but others may feel it's a large time commitment they would not otherwise make, or be too close to the realm of psychology/medicine, and require more than just "Works for me!" before trying it themselves. As I said before, the lack of science didn't stop me either.

ryanwaggoner 16y ago

I completely agree, and I would love to see some evidence like this, one way or another. However, I'm not going to avoid trying it out in the absence of scientific evidence. That's just not an effective way to live, and we have an array of tools to evaluate things where science hasn't yet poked its nose. For example, if someone posts a link to a library or framework that they really enjoyed and found useful in a project, we don't avoid it until we find a study comparing it to a control group. No, we try it out, we look at the advice of those we trust, we look at what others have done with it, etc. There are more questions in the world than science can ever hope to address, and sometimes you have to make a decision with limited information.

gcheong 16y ago
There are plenty of things that science has shown can work in the areas of motivation, discipline, etc., that one would think it would at least make sense to look there first.
- natep 16y ago
  Is "plenty of things" enough to post a link to some? Do you practice any of these things? Otherwise, your comment does not add much to the discussion (and hence the down votes, I think).
  - gcheong 16y ago
    I did in another comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938239 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938239, and anyone with rudimentary Google skills should be able to find others, but my comment here is that in this area there are so many things put forth as useful with no evidence but that this is also an area where many people doing real science are finding things of practical use that it's probably better to start by seeing what those people have found first and trying that. It is not, as the OP suggest, a place where "science has not yet poked its nose". Do I have to provide links to cancer treatments shown to work before recommending people try experimental treatments only as a last resort?
16y ago