diff options
| author | Marcin Chrzanowski <m@m-chrzan.xyz> | 2021-03-16 16:33:53 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Marcin Chrzanowski <m@m-chrzan.xyz> | 2021-03-16 16:33:53 +0100 |
| commit | af815c1e87dc0185f9167365b01290050bbc110f (patch) | |
| tree | b4604dc276e27d5823f29ace8875f8b2f6b7d105 /src/blog | |
| parent | 5e45c065b0f0e7cc94a979cfea7677028af801cc (diff) | |
Publish Nothing is Good for You
Diffstat (limited to 'src/blog')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html | 41 |
1 files changed, 41 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html b/src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7a6ef18 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +title: Nothing is "Good for You" +date: March 16, 2021 15:06 +--- +<p> +Popular science websites or lifestyle bloggers often tout headlines along the +lines of "Is X good for you? Science says YES!" These articles usually cite some +new study, though without going into the details of it, rarely discussing even +the surface level of the methodology or significance of results. +</p> + +<p> +The study measures the impact of X on some output(s) Y, and just based on the +fact that it concludes with a positive impact on Y (no matter the magnitude), +the pop science article reports that X is objectively good, and will end by +recommending that every reader should now do X, incorporate X into your daily +routine, need never feel guilty again doing X (since often X is something +associated with bad habits, like drinking a particular alcohol, playing video +games, etc). +</p> + +<p> +Clickbaity headlines like that will easily imprint a positive association with X +in most readers' minds. But just because a study found a positive impact of X on +Y doesn't necessarily warrant saying that it is objectively "good for you". +</p> + +<p> +Even barring general problems with many studies (was it performed on a large +enough population? was the methodology correct? were there any biases +introduced? was the population representative of the reader?), any study will be +able to test only a limited number of outputs Y. So even if the study was +performed perfectly, and you agree with the authors on what change in Y is +positive or not, the study can make no claim on all other aspects that could be +potentially impacted by X, including ones that we wouldn't even expect to be +affected. +</p> + +<p> +You will most likely benefit more from using "Lindy" things (per Nassim Taleb's +terminology) than jumping on any particular pop science trend. +</p> |