3 ms·

Tried it for 3 months, noticed zero difference, and stopped. Now, do you know anything new? No, because anecdotes don’t actually provide meaningful informatio

by Retric 2y ago

Tried it for 3 months, noticed zero difference, and stopped. Now, do you know anything new? No, because anecdotes don’t actually provide meaningful information, we don’t know why we did or didn’t improve. Or in my case if there was some minor benefit or minor harm because I didn’t pay close enough attention etc etc.

meowkit 2y ago
Anecdotal results are highly dependent on the provider. The scientific method is supposed to allow someone with no credibility to provide signal through >process< and then gain credibility. Anecdotes from >a credible< person are very meaningful as they are often a high indicator of signal. A social heuristic outside of rigorous research. Your results as an anon? Basically useless. On HN? Slightly better than on reddit or facebook. Provide your methodology? Better still, and now youre approaching a research proposal. The meta discussion around anecdata being useful or not is silly.
- Retric 2y ago
  If you want the protocol? Sure water temp 50-55f for 15 minutes 4-6 days a week (generally 5) for 3 months. Water chest height, arms generally above water. How exactly does credibility matter here? Science is heavily reputation based because there’s so much at stake and so few experiments take place, but with anecdotal evidence I don’t see the credibility of individual datapoints mattering much. I can’t tell if I minimally influenced my upper respiratory tract infection risk etc, all I can tell is the hassle wasn’t worth a benefit too small for me to notice. And that’s the issue, more than credibility if effect size was large enough to be noticeable to individuals you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies. Conversely if it isn’t showing up as extremely effective in the literature that’s strong evidence individuals are misattributing their experiences.
  - implmntatio 2y ago
    how often did you get sick? weight? what season did you do it in? what was your goal in the first place? > you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional. science is cool, scientists are just regular ol' people and enough regular ol' people do a lot to look good, to not be unemployed and having to write applications again, to get their tap on the head and or a nice bonus. **regular in their little slices under the bell curve
    - hsuduebc2 2y ago
      It's strange to question the work of scientists in this way. Precisely because they are only human the studies are peer reviewed and the meta studies have the most explanatory value and weight. Unless you are assuming there is some global conspiracy of scientists to have jobs the system it selfs manages it by it's transparency. Simplifying it in a "check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional" way is exactly the wrong approach. How do you know what kind of diet, genome and culture they have? There are so many variables that the mere fact of whether one diverse group does something different than another doesn't really say anything. It's so difficult to try to isolate individual problems. That's why we have the scientists.
      - d-k-blackthorn 2y ago
        Don’t both things have value, when measured on different axes? I think it’s just a bit more gray.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        You haven't heard of the replication crisis?
        hsuduebc2 2y ago
        Not till now. Thanks. But as weird as it can sounds. The failing and iterationg over and over is integral part of science. Which includes method itself.
        ninetyninenine 2y ago
        The "method" was never fixed. It was identified but we have no way of correcting it. A ton of science is still completely dubious.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional. That tells you about those countries but very little about cold exposure specifically. One inherent difference is they lack a lot of tropical diseases because they aren’t in the tropics. You could still try and remove all those differences, but directly studying cold exposure itself is vastly more practical.
- yowayb 2y ago
  There are many things (I frankly don't think there's a more specific word for this) like diets and psychedelics where many of us (rigorously minded) are constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible.
  - implmntatio 2y ago
    > constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible Language. Nothing is impossible.
  - bcoates 2y ago
    Diet interventions aren't terribly hard to test, they just consistently tend to result in "as bad or worse than no intervention" (short of fixing the sort of malnutrition you rarely see in the contemporary developed world) The rigorous result is right in front of us we just don't like the answer
m3kw9 2y ago
I tried it for 20 seconds that was it
hollerith 2y ago
All five merchants who went to Opal City were never seen again, but don't let that stop you from going to Opal City because anecdotes don’t actually provide meaningful information.
- ambicapter 2y ago
  if cold plunges either killed people or revived them from the dead, this would be a great analogy.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Another low stake option. 5 of your friends each say that restaurant A is horrible and restaurant B was great. You have to pick a restaurant. Are you going to throw dice because these are just anecdotes and don't matter?
    - Retric 2y ago
      Carful, now you’re leaving random antidotes. A specific restaurant is an actual place so if someone describes the decor and prices yesterday it’s not going to be wildly different when you show up tomorrow.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Is there a paper supporting that position of yours? I would like to see a study highlighting that restaurants are unlikely to change in time.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        hollerith 2y ago
        I'm not eating anything till I see a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the verbal reports about restaurant decor made by my family members or the guys I ride bikes with on weekends have any actual correlation with actual restaurant decor. Where is the hard, non-anecdotal evidence?
mewpmewp2 2y ago
Should you also not ask for restaurant recommendations from people? These are also anecdotes.
- Retric 2y ago
  When someone records the height of a specific mountain we call that a measurement not an anecdote. If I ask someone if this bar is good, and they say they went to a different unrelated bar and it sucked then I’m going to ignore that as a random anecdote.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    What about if someone says that they felt a sauna session was good for them, or cold plunge benefited their health, etc?
    - Retric 2y ago
      I know far too many aging hippies and their kids who believe all kinds of nonsense to really care what kind of health claims they’re making. I just tune out. One guy was saying you can replace sleep with LSD. He changed his mind, but would you believe it or just do what I did smile nod and move on?
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I wouldn't believe that, but there are plenty of other activities that I do because people have anecdotally reported that they benefitted from them. In this case I would use my internal judgment and intuition to decide based on benefits vs cost/risk. Does it seem unlikely to harm me, but many people have suggested they benefit from it? Sure, I will try it. I will see if I feel better or notice anything. If I don't, that's fine. If I do, I wouldn't necessarily know if it is beyond placebo or not, but I could keep doing it to see how it affects my life and if it keeps seemingly positive I can decide to keep doing it even though I don't have scientifically unquestionable truth that it is actually helping me. People have survived generations and found things that work without needing everything to be scientifically verified.

by Retric 2y ago

meowkit 2y ago

Anecdotal results are highly dependent on the provider. The scientific method is supposed to allow someone with no credibility to provide signal through >process< and then gain credibility. Anecdotes from >a credible< person are very meaningful as they are often a high indicator of signal. A social heuristic outside of rigorous research. Your results as an anon? Basically useless. On HN? Slightly better than on reddit or facebook. Provide your methodology? Better still, and now youre approaching a research proposal. The meta discussion around anecdata being useful or not is silly.

Retric 2y ago
If you want the protocol? Sure water temp 50-55f for 15 minutes 4-6 days a week (generally 5) for 3 months. Water chest height, arms generally above water. How exactly does credibility matter here? Science is heavily reputation based because there’s so much at stake and so few experiments take place, but with anecdotal evidence I don’t see the credibility of individual datapoints mattering much. I can’t tell if I minimally influenced my upper respiratory tract infection risk etc, all I can tell is the hassle wasn’t worth a benefit too small for me to notice. And that’s the issue, more than credibility if effect size was large enough to be noticeable to individuals you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies. Conversely if it isn’t showing up as extremely effective in the literature that’s strong evidence individuals are misattributing their experiences.
- implmntatio 2y ago
  how often did you get sick? weight? what season did you do it in? what was your goal in the first place? > you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional. science is cool, scientists are just regular ol' people and enough regular ol' people do a lot to look good, to not be unemployed and having to write applications again, to get their tap on the head and or a nice bonus. **regular in their little slices under the bell curve
  - hsuduebc2 2y ago
    It's strange to question the work of scientists in this way. Precisely because they are only human the studies are peer reviewed and the meta studies have the most explanatory value and weight. Unless you are assuming there is some global conspiracy of scientists to have jobs the system it selfs manages it by it's transparency. Simplifying it in a "check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional" way is exactly the wrong approach. How do you know what kind of diet, genome and culture they have? There are so many variables that the mere fact of whether one diverse group does something different than another doesn't really say anything. It's so difficult to try to isolate individual problems. That's why we have the scientists.
    - d-k-blackthorn 2y ago
      Don’t both things have value, when measured on different axes? I think it’s just a bit more gray.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      You haven't heard of the replication crisis?
      - hsuduebc2 2y ago
        Not till now. Thanks. But as weird as it can sounds. The failing and iterationg over and over is integral part of science. Which includes method itself.
        ninetyninenine 2y ago
        The "method" was never fixed. It was identified but we have no way of correcting it. A ton of science is still completely dubious.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional. That tells you about those countries but very little about cold exposure specifically. One inherent difference is they lack a lot of tropical diseases because they aren’t in the tropics. You could still try and remove all those differences, but directly studying cold exposure itself is vastly more practical.
yowayb 2y ago
There are many things (I frankly don't think there's a more specific word for this) like diets and psychedelics where many of us (rigorously minded) are constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible.
- implmntatio 2y ago
  > constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible Language. Nothing is impossible.
- bcoates 2y ago
  Diet interventions aren't terribly hard to test, they just consistently tend to result in "as bad or worse than no intervention" (short of fixing the sort of malnutrition you rarely see in the contemporary developed world) The rigorous result is right in front of us we just don't like the answer

m3kw9 2y ago

I tried it for 20 seconds that was it

hollerith 2y ago

All five merchants who went to Opal City were never seen again, but don't let that stop you from going to Opal City because anecdotes don’t actually provide meaningful information.

ambicapter 2y ago
if cold plunges either killed people or revived them from the dead, this would be a great analogy.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Another low stake option. 5 of your friends each say that restaurant A is horrible and restaurant B was great. You have to pick a restaurant. Are you going to throw dice because these are just anecdotes and don't matter?
  - Retric 2y ago
    Carful, now you’re leaving random antidotes. A specific restaurant is an actual place so if someone describes the decor and prices yesterday it’s not going to be wildly different when you show up tomorrow.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      Is there a paper supporting that position of yours? I would like to see a study highlighting that restaurants are unlikely to change in time.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - hollerith 2y ago
        I'm not eating anything till I see a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the verbal reports about restaurant decor made by my family members or the guys I ride bikes with on weekends have any actual correlation with actual restaurant decor. Where is the hard, non-anecdotal evidence?

mewpmewp2 2y ago

Should you also not ask for restaurant recommendations from people? These are also anecdotes.

Retric 2y ago
When someone records the height of a specific mountain we call that a measurement not an anecdote. If I ask someone if this bar is good, and they say they went to a different unrelated bar and it sucked then I’m going to ignore that as a random anecdote.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  What about if someone says that they felt a sauna session was good for them, or cold plunge benefited their health, etc?
  - Retric 2y ago
    I know far too many aging hippies and their kids who believe all kinds of nonsense to really care what kind of health claims they’re making. I just tune out. One guy was saying you can replace sleep with LSD. He changed his mind, but would you believe it or just do what I did smile nod and move on?
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      I wouldn't believe that, but there are plenty of other activities that I do because people have anecdotally reported that they benefitted from them. In this case I would use my internal judgment and intuition to decide based on benefits vs cost/risk. Does it seem unlikely to harm me, but many people have suggested they benefit from it? Sure, I will try it. I will see if I feel better or notice anything. If I don't, that's fine. If I do, I wouldn't necessarily know if it is beyond placebo or not, but I could keep doing it to see how it affects my life and if it keeps seemingly positive I can decide to keep doing it even though I don't have scientifically unquestionable truth that it is actually helping me. People have survived generations and found things that work without needing everything to be scientifically verified.