3 ms·

I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific), and "an investig

I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific), and "an investigation that seems incredibly motivated by a particular conclusion managed to find the evidence it was looking for" still makes a lot more sense than, "some organization is injuring US diplomats, all over the world, with no clear goals or demands, with a wide constellation of symptoms, that an awful lot like mass hysteria." If there's really a there there and they solve the "who, what, why", then I'm happy to eat crow. But I don't think they will because I don't think there is.

tablespoon 5y ago
> I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific) Huh? I think you're misunderstanding the situation here and misapplying a heuristic. That sample size of 40 people may be the universe of cases (at the time) or a significant fraction of it, and I don't know what could be "weirdly specific" about "48 demographically similar healthy controls."
- maxbond 5y ago
  Perhaps there's a nuance I'm missing, but it's odd to me that you'd look at 48 _government employees_ and not as many people off the street of a similar age etc. as you could afford. Is there reason to believe people who work in government have different brains? Are we trying to see if these government employees are different than other government employees, or that they're different from _people in general_? 40 is a significant fraction of 200, but it's still a small number. You subject 40 people to a whole battery of imaging and examination, and I'm sure you'll find something odd in at least one of the tests. "Intensive and repeated investigation of a small population yields artifacts, and there is no plot" seems the stronger case to me. If there is a plot, then I'm sure the CIA can solve it. That's what they do, and they have all the resources in the world to do it. If they don't solve it, then I think we should accept that there was no plot and that mass hysteria is the best explanation. Similarly if they do solve it, then we have to accept that. Several years in, the explanations are shifting and vague, which is the hallmark of mirage.

tablespoon 5y ago

> I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific) Huh? I think you're misunderstanding the situation here and misapplying a heuristic. That sample size of 40 people may be the universe of cases (at the time) or a significant fraction of it, and I don't know what could be "weirdly specific" about "48 demographically similar healthy controls."

maxbond 5y ago
Perhaps there's a nuance I'm missing, but it's odd to me that you'd look at 48 _government employees_ and not as many people off the street of a similar age etc. as you could afford. Is there reason to believe people who work in government have different brains? Are we trying to see if these government employees are different than other government employees, or that they're different from _people in general_? 40 is a significant fraction of 200, but it's still a small number. You subject 40 people to a whole battery of imaging and examination, and I'm sure you'll find something odd in at least one of the tests. "Intensive and repeated investigation of a small population yields artifacts, and there is no plot" seems the stronger case to me. If there is a plot, then I'm sure the CIA can solve it. That's what they do, and they have all the resources in the world to do it. If they don't solve it, then I think we should accept that there was no plot and that mass hysteria is the best explanation. Similarly if they do solve it, then we have to accept that. Several years in, the explanations are shifting and vague, which is the hallmark of mirage.