3 ms·

I think you are mischaracterizing this meta-analysis. First, a meta-analysis is never about just trying one thing; that's what a single study is for. A meta-ana

I think you are mischaracterizing this meta-analysis. First, a meta-analysis is never about just trying one thing; that's what a single study is for. A meta-analysis looks at many studies, over a long period of time and tries to find consistent patterns that emerge from the whole. That's how we try to systematically figure out if results are by chance, or if there's a real effect. The pattern these authors are pulling from all of these studies is there is no real effect. When you find no real effect over many studies for a long time, you inevitably have to confront the question: is what we're trying to do possible?

mlyle 4y ago
> When you find no real effect over many studies for a long time, you inevitably have to confront the question: is what we're trying to do possible? Devil's advocate: The same would apply to say, Alzheimer's treatments, where we've had no real effect over many studies for a long time. Should we give up?
- yababa_y 4y ago
  Lack of progress is a good reason to backtrack up the search tree. Which is exactly what we are seeing with alzheimer’s research. Amyloid hypothesis isn’t working, so backtrack. It’s a logical error to extend that to “give up”
  - mlyle 4y ago
    The logical extension of this would be that perhaps it's time to not spend as much effort on some approaches at cognitive training, but not to give up on possibility of the entire idea.
colechristensen 4y ago
>When you find no real effect over many studies for a long time, you inevitably have to confront the question: is what we're trying to do possible? This is what I'm criticizing. The methodology for searching for real effects is broken.
SubiculumCode 4y ago
one problem with meta analyses is that they often collapse studies accross theoretically important details, and thus unsurprisingly find weak or inconsistent effects. I saw this in a lot of metaanalyses of memory function.

mlyle 4y ago

> When you find no real effect over many studies for a long time, you inevitably have to confront the question: is what we're trying to do possible? Devil's advocate: The same would apply to say, Alzheimer's treatments, where we've had no real effect over many studies for a long time. Should we give up?

yababa_y 4y ago
Lack of progress is a good reason to backtrack up the search tree. Which is exactly what we are seeing with alzheimer’s research. Amyloid hypothesis isn’t working, so backtrack. It’s a logical error to extend that to “give up”
- mlyle 4y ago
  The logical extension of this would be that perhaps it's time to not spend as much effort on some approaches at cognitive training, but not to give up on possibility of the entire idea.

colechristensen 4y ago

>When you find no real effect over many studies for a long time, you inevitably have to confront the question: is what we're trying to do possible? This is what I'm criticizing. The methodology for searching for real effects is broken.

SubiculumCode 4y ago

one problem with meta analyses is that they often collapse studies accross theoretically important details, and thus unsurprisingly find weak or inconsistent effects. I saw this in a lot of metaanalyses of memory function.