From af815c1e87dc0185f9167365b01290050bbc110f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marcin Chrzanowski <m@m-chrzan.xyz>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:33:53 +0100
Subject: Publish Nothing is Good for You

---
 src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html

(limited to 'src/blog/nothing-is-good-for-you.html')

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>
-- 
cgit v1.2.3