1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
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>
|