Peer-reviewed research on human psychology & behavior explains averages and correlations and it doesn’t say much about its applicability to you specifically. So, think for yourself.
Brilliant. This perspective on behavioral studies is crucial. It makes me wonder about the systemic mechanisms that allow a study to be designed for a predetermined outcome and still pass peer review. Is it often suptle biases in methodology?
Think for oneself - as straightforward as it sounds, is very difficult but something I push myself to do. As I slowly gain confidence in my observations and what works for me, I still try to learn from others' wisdom but no longer blindly believing peer-reviewed studies as "truth" but more as a compass hovering around some truth.
I have a certain number of followers on Facebook — not a huge amount, a bit over 100,000. I’ve written similar arguments probably hundreds of times, and each time it triggered intense backlash: people tried to hate me, accused me of being anti-science, of obscurantism, and so on.
So it was genuinely refreshing to see your article for the first time — it aligns with my own views, and I fully support your position. Although, broadly speaking, I’d say that the thesis you present applies not only to psychology but to almost all sciences. I assume you’re well aware that science long ago stopped being a path to truth that demands personal sacrifice and a willingness to take risks, and has largely become a kind of corporate system — a career track where people follow managerial directives rather than their own conscience.
This got me thinking in another direction. When you write posts meant to be consumed by hundreds or thousands of people, asking follow-up questions of the author becomes hard-to-impossible (even if the author is OK with spending a ton of time engaging with the readers' questions). When you communicate with your team via email and Slack (e.g., experiment updates in the context of product work), erring on the side of brevity maximizes the change of the colleagues actually reading the Slack message. It also leaves the door open for them to ask questions. Brevity could offer as a path of getting colleagues to engage with your work more.
Brilliant. This perspective on behavioral studies is crucial. It makes me wonder about the systemic mechanisms that allow a study to be designed for a predetermined outcome and still pass peer review. Is it often suptle biases in methodology?
Insightful! I wrote on a similar topic with https://open.substack.com/pub/pinchofcurious/p/science-that-changed-its-mind?r=53ssud&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay.
Think for oneself - as straightforward as it sounds, is very difficult but something I push myself to do. As I slowly gain confidence in my observations and what works for me, I still try to learn from others' wisdom but no longer blindly believing peer-reviewed studies as "truth" but more as a compass hovering around some truth.
Wonderful observation and timing. Perplexity.ai referred this article in its News section. Sorry, cannot find it there any more.
As if on cue, it appeared yesterday as I was finalizing my Substack article about Embodied Language Learning. Added yours as a comment.
https://berndnurnberger.substack.com/p/embodied-language-learning
I have a certain number of followers on Facebook — not a huge amount, a bit over 100,000. I’ve written similar arguments probably hundreds of times, and each time it triggered intense backlash: people tried to hate me, accused me of being anti-science, of obscurantism, and so on.
So it was genuinely refreshing to see your article for the first time — it aligns with my own views, and I fully support your position. Although, broadly speaking, I’d say that the thesis you present applies not only to psychology but to almost all sciences. I assume you’re well aware that science long ago stopped being a path to truth that demands personal sacrifice and a willingness to take risks, and has largely become a kind of corporate system — a career track where people follow managerial directives rather than their own conscience.
Very insightful!
This got me thinking in another direction. When you write posts meant to be consumed by hundreds or thousands of people, asking follow-up questions of the author becomes hard-to-impossible (even if the author is OK with spending a ton of time engaging with the readers' questions). When you communicate with your team via email and Slack (e.g., experiment updates in the context of product work), erring on the side of brevity maximizes the change of the colleagues actually reading the Slack message. It also leaves the door open for them to ask questions. Brevity could offer as a path of getting colleagues to engage with your work more.