3 ms·

I'm skepical of putting a scientific veneer over such analysis. If that's the point you'd like to make, go ahead and make it, but leave science out of it.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Why shouldn't the methods of science be used to tackle these kinds of questions?
- chmod600 6y ago
  Because they lead to a false sense of certainty and inappropriately appeal to authority. These questions are complex. The premises and framing are critical. The surrounding evidence that's not measured is probably much more important than whatever the scientist is able to actually measure. All living beings, including humans, are a mix of strengths and weaknesses in careful balance. If a martian scientist were to look at humans they would probably say something like: "Not very strong, not very fast, eats a lot, no armor, horns, or poison. Can't fly. We predict that wolves will hunt them to extinction in a few decades." But obviously the martians didn't measure our brains. Evolution of living beings tends to create these exceptions that throw off simpistic analysis. What are you forgetting to measure that will completely throw off your conclusions?
  - sjy 6y ago
    The scientific article summarised in this piece is clear about this. The effect size is quantified. It’s not fake science to look at small effects. > It should be noted that the magnitude of the effects is generally quite small and the overall explanatory power of the models is modest. However, complex psychological phenomena, such as personality, are likely to be influenced by hundreds, if not thousands, of factors, so small effects are to be expected especially when examined in the uncontrolled context of real-world settings ... our research shows that an increase of one standard deviation in mountainousness is associated with a change of approximately 1% in personality, which may seem insignificant. However, when scaled to hundreds of thousands of people, such an increase would translate into substantial changes ...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  They should. But often, you instead get "fake science": a badly-designed study that is followed by inadequate statistical analysis that just happens to confirm the investigator's pre-existing biases. That approach shouldn't be used to investigate anything. Nor should the conclusions be regarded as scientific.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Why shouldn't the methods of science be used to tackle these kinds of questions?

chmod600 6y ago
Because they lead to a false sense of certainty and inappropriately appeal to authority. These questions are complex. The premises and framing are critical. The surrounding evidence that's not measured is probably much more important than whatever the scientist is able to actually measure. All living beings, including humans, are a mix of strengths and weaknesses in careful balance. If a martian scientist were to look at humans they would probably say something like: "Not very strong, not very fast, eats a lot, no armor, horns, or poison. Can't fly. We predict that wolves will hunt them to extinction in a few decades." But obviously the martians didn't measure our brains. Evolution of living beings tends to create these exceptions that throw off simpistic analysis. What are you forgetting to measure that will completely throw off your conclusions?
- sjy 6y ago
  The scientific article summarised in this piece is clear about this. The effect size is quantified. It’s not fake science to look at small effects. > It should be noted that the magnitude of the effects is generally quite small and the overall explanatory power of the models is modest. However, complex psychological phenomena, such as personality, are likely to be influenced by hundreds, if not thousands, of factors, so small effects are to be expected especially when examined in the uncontrolled context of real-world settings ... our research shows that an increase of one standard deviation in mountainousness is associated with a change of approximately 1% in personality, which may seem insignificant. However, when scaled to hundreds of thousands of people, such an increase would translate into substantial changes ...
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
They should. But often, you instead get "fake science": a badly-designed study that is followed by inadequate statistical analysis that just happens to confirm the investigator's pre-existing biases. That approach shouldn't be used to investigate anything. Nor should the conclusions be regarded as scientific.