4 ms·

You are assuming the scientists who did these studies and the scientists attempting to merge them with meta-analysis are asleep at the wheel and have failed to

You are assuming the scientists who did these studies and the scientists attempting to merge them with meta-analysis are asleep at the wheel and have failed to correct for obvious confounding factors that a random member of the public could brainstorm in the seconds it took you to post. This doesn't seem like a sensible assumption, absent evidence.

MrJagil 11y ago
Hey Julian, I really wasn't trying to discredit any of the studies done. Whenever I participate in discussion my main motivation is always to try and create nuances. I know before hand that an actual truth is impossible to attain, so I feel it's better to just try and add some color to the discussion. Causation and correlation is of course always low-hanging fruit, I just felt it was curious that the article did not touch upon it and wanted to fuel a different angle of discussion.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  As a general rule, devils-advocacy (being the process of advocating a position you don't agree with because you think it isn't getting enough air time) is unhelpful verging on concern trolling. If it's a strong argument, why hasn't it convinced you? When you do that, you emit weak arguments that are easy to knock down but send the discussion off on a tangent.
  - MrJagil 11y ago
    I never considered nuancing a discussion could be unhelpful, but I think I understand your point. There's some kind of underlying truth we're attempting to uncover, and in your opinion, I'm derailing by "nuancing" through devils advocacy; submitting arguments I do not actually believe to be worthwhile. I'm wondering though, does it have to be so black and white? Can't I believe partially that what i'm positing is worthwhile, or at least have a feeling there's something to uncover down that avenue, without being entirely convinced? I would assume bouncing half-baked ideas off each other could be valuable (though I do recall a bunch of studies debunking Brainstorming, which I guess this is similar to).

MrJagil 11y ago

Hey Julian, I really wasn't trying to discredit any of the studies done. Whenever I participate in discussion my main motivation is always to try and create nuances. I know before hand that an actual truth is impossible to attain, so I feel it's better to just try and add some color to the discussion. Causation and correlation is of course always low-hanging fruit, I just felt it was curious that the article did not touch upon it and wanted to fuel a different angle of discussion.

JulianMorrison 11y ago
As a general rule, devils-advocacy (being the process of advocating a position you don't agree with because you think it isn't getting enough air time) is unhelpful verging on concern trolling. If it's a strong argument, why hasn't it convinced you? When you do that, you emit weak arguments that are easy to knock down but send the discussion off on a tangent.
- MrJagil 11y ago
  I never considered nuancing a discussion could be unhelpful, but I think I understand your point. There's some kind of underlying truth we're attempting to uncover, and in your opinion, I'm derailing by "nuancing" through devils advocacy; submitting arguments I do not actually believe to be worthwhile. I'm wondering though, does it have to be so black and white? Can't I believe partially that what i'm positing is worthwhile, or at least have a feeling there's something to uncover down that avenue, without being entirely convinced? I would assume bouncing half-baked ideas off each other could be valuable (though I do recall a bunch of studies debunking Brainstorming, which I guess this is similar to).