2 ms·

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 scienti

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?
natep 16y ago
And we also do the science ourselves by trying it and sharing our observations, as you did. Thanks for the link, and I hope it works for me! Edit: oh, and I said pretty much the same thing as you just did in another of my replies[1]. Maybe I didn't put enough disclaimers in my original post? [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938305

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?

natep 16y ago

And we also do the science ourselves by trying it and sharing our observations, as you did. Thanks for the link, and I hope it works for me! Edit: oh, and I said pretty much the same thing as you just did in another of my replies[1]. Maybe I didn't put enough disclaimers in my original post? [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938305