8 ms·

I don't get it. How did the first experiment imply anything about willpower? Seems to me that a viable explanation for the first experiment is that heavy cogni

by ryandvm 13y ago

I don't get it. How did the first experiment imply anything about willpower? Seems to me that a viable explanation for the first experiment is that heavy cognitive processing trips some circuitry in the brain that says "We got a lot of work to do. Get me some glucose."

rcthompson 13y ago
The blog post is glossing over the details of the peer-reviewed scientific literature a bit. I'm not sure, but I believe the result has been replicated without food. On the other hand, I believe there is also a body of more recent research indicating that the "cognitive fuel tank" model is too simplistic to give an accurate description of how it works.
- JanezStupar 13y ago
  A guy went and invented calculus in something like 2009. It went through peer review process and got praised for being revolutionary. However the author was a MD. Peer-reviewed scientific literature means nothing on its own.
  - rcthompson 13y ago
    A single peer-reviewed article means nothing on its own, but a result replicated in many peer-reviewed articles by independent authors over many years starts to mean something. That's generally what people mean when they say that the "peer-reviewed scientific literature" supports a claim or theory. However, the very common exception is when someone with an agenda abuses the term "peer-reviewed scientific literature" to describe a single article or a string of articles from a single or a few closely-affiliated sources in order to support their agenda. Of course, this is taking advantage of the true meaning of the term. See also "clinically proven".
    - JanezStupar 13y ago
      But the example I mentioned resulted in citations. And praise and replications and whatnot. It was still absurd and should not have happened.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    It was the trapezoid rule for integration, and it was wholly accurate, just ignorant of previous work.
- betaclass 13y ago
  The work of Roy Baumeister shows many of these interactions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation

by ryandvm 13y ago

rcthompson 13y ago

The blog post is glossing over the details of the peer-reviewed scientific literature a bit. I'm not sure, but I believe the result has been replicated without food. On the other hand, I believe there is also a body of more recent research indicating that the "cognitive fuel tank" model is too simplistic to give an accurate description of how it works.

JanezStupar 13y ago
A guy went and invented calculus in something like 2009. It went through peer review process and got praised for being revolutionary. However the author was a MD. Peer-reviewed scientific literature means nothing on its own.
- rcthompson 13y ago
  A single peer-reviewed article means nothing on its own, but a result replicated in many peer-reviewed articles by independent authors over many years starts to mean something. That's generally what people mean when they say that the "peer-reviewed scientific literature" supports a claim or theory. However, the very common exception is when someone with an agenda abuses the term "peer-reviewed scientific literature" to describe a single article or a string of articles from a single or a few closely-affiliated sources in order to support their agenda. Of course, this is taking advantage of the true meaning of the term. See also "clinically proven".
  - JanezStupar 13y ago
    But the example I mentioned resulted in citations. And praise and replications and whatnot. It was still absurd and should not have happened.
- gohrt 13y ago
  It was the trapezoid rule for integration, and it was wholly accurate, just ignorant of previous work.
betaclass 13y ago
The work of Roy Baumeister shows many of these interactions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister#Self_regulation