4 ms·
Without citations of scientific research, this is really just an exercise in generalizing from one example. http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_ex
by mej10 14y ago
Without citations of scientific research, this is really just an exercise in generalizing from one example.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
- Apocryphon 14y agoScientific research is necessary for self-help or lifehacking now?
- gjm11 14y agoNecessary? No. You can do what you like. But if you want to find out what works and what doesn't, and actually get the right answer, the scientific approach is the only game in town.
- drcube 14y agoI'm usually the guy who defends science, but I kind of disagree with you here. Science looks for statistical trends. But I'm just one guy. Something could fail for >90% of the population and still work for me. Conversely, something could work for >90% of the population and fail for me. If the costs of trying the solution aren't high, trial and error (guided by some basic scientific theory) might be more successful than scouring the journals for whatever self help theory happens to have a little bit of clinical support these days. A lot of these theories haven't been tested, and a lot of them that have weren't too rigorous.
- freshhawk 14y agotrial and error with sample size of one (yourself) is called a bunch of anecdotes. We have plenty of evidence by now of how useful this is when looking for the truth about something. trial and error with a sample size of one is great at convincing you of something that's not true. It's horrible at everything else. The least rigorously tested theories in the softest of sciences are still orders of magnitude more likely to be right than something one person has done through trial and error experiments on themselves.
- gjm11 14y agoIf you do "trial and error (guided by some basic scientific theory)" on yourself, and do it well enough to justify believing the results you get, then you are doing scientific research. So I think we're actually in violent agreement.
- mindcrime 14y agoScientific research is necessary for self-help or lifehacking now? Necessary? No, you can do whatever you want. But if you're making important decisions about how to live your life, wouldn't you prefer to make those decisions based on knowledge that's been validated as thoroughly as possible?
- freshhawk 14y agoIf you care about little things like if the tip/thing/hack actually works then it is yes. How could knowing if something works or not not be necessary?
- Apocryphon 14y agoBecause these tips are not scientific, nor are they meant to be, and I doubt that they can even be testable. How often can life advice be empirical?
- freshhawk 14y agoCompletely empirical? Probably never. But if something has no evidence presented then I don't understand why an educated person would care. We know that without evidence the advice/tips/pet theories of human beings are much more likely to be wrong than to be right. Without any evidence I read these kinds of things like "here is some bullshit that is almost certainly wrong in a fundamental way because I am human and therefore have a multitude of biases that I am unaware of". Doesn't mean it isn't interesting to read someones personal philosophy, especially if it's well argued and written. But why would you follow advice when you have no way of determining if it's good or bad advice? The more convincing something like this is to your "gut" the more likely it is to be a specific kind of bad advice.