I’m saying “I don’t think people that have a short enough attention span and level of interest to not even want to DM me will do a 4hr/day thing for 2 weeks”
But maybe some of them would be interested in DYI-ing it, because that’s a different mindset.
DYI-ing it without specific steps quite simply isn’t replicating it, it’s doing something else, and any results—beneficial or not—couldn’t be attributed to your experiment. I also assume that if you want people to have faith in the non-DYI full version of your experiment, then you need to share the exact steps similar to how peer review works and allow others to replicate exactly each step.
I admit that I don’t know much about the Scientific Method other than what I learned in High School, so correct me if I’m wrong.
We do indeed need to make sure plane A and plane B are the same in all instances, I’d say that engineering not science, but in the last 50 years little science has happened so people seem to confuse the two.
If we are trying to prove something like:
Planes can fly
Then the specific plane design is less important.
My point here is something like “I did a thing, and people seem to have higher IQs upon retesting than control, and I’m controlling for things like motivation, memorization, exercise and diet” therefore, given that we don’t expect anything (maybe sans stimulants?) to increase IQ, or at least anything besides going from slob to active lifestyle wise, this finding is interesting.
If you already believe that this sort of increase is possible and easy then without me comparing it with other such experiments and outlining my method precisely in a way that a 3rd party can replicate—the claim would be useless.
But that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying “Nobody has ever tried to take a cohort of adults at +1 to +3 STDs of IQ and have it improve”, I did (well, people did it and I collected the data) and it seems possible, therefore something interesting is happening. Given that most people here would say this thing is not possible, this should be an update that it’s possible.
I don’t want to update on the precise step-by-step method by which it’s possible, much like, if I had a crappy plane design and saw it fly, I wouldn’t want people to replicate my crappy plane design, I’d want people to try and design better planes, after updating on the fact that building planes is, in principle, possible.
This goes doubly so if by publishing the exact plane design the FAA would sue me.
How do you reconcile the need to “replicate” scientifically and people trying “in their own way”?
How is it contradicting ?
I’m saying “I don’t think people that have a short enough attention span and level of interest to not even want to DM me will do a 4hr/day thing for 2 weeks”
But maybe some of them would be interested in DYI-ing it, because that’s a different mindset.
So for those people I’d rather they DYI a thing.
DYI-ing it without specific steps quite simply isn’t replicating it, it’s doing something else, and any results—beneficial or not—couldn’t be attributed to your experiment. I also assume that if you want people to have faith in the non-DYI full version of your experiment, then you need to share the exact steps similar to how peer review works and allow others to replicate exactly each step.
I admit that I don’t know much about the Scientific Method other than what I learned in High School, so correct me if I’m wrong.
So, if we are trying to prove something like:
Plane A flies faster than plane B
We do indeed need to make sure plane A and plane B are the same in all instances, I’d say that engineering not science, but in the last 50 years little science has happened so people seem to confuse the two.
If we are trying to prove something like:
Planes can fly
Then the specific plane design is less important.
My point here is something like “I did a thing, and people seem to have higher IQs upon retesting than control, and I’m controlling for things like motivation, memorization, exercise and diet” therefore, given that we don’t expect anything (maybe sans stimulants?) to increase IQ, or at least anything besides going from slob to active lifestyle wise, this finding is interesting.
If you already believe that this sort of increase is possible and easy then without me comparing it with other such experiments and outlining my method precisely in a way that a 3rd party can replicate—the claim would be useless.
But that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying “Nobody has ever tried to take a cohort of adults at +1 to +3 STDs of IQ and have it improve”, I did (well, people did it and I collected the data) and it seems possible, therefore something interesting is happening. Given that most people here would say this thing is not possible, this should be an update that it’s possible.
I don’t want to update on the precise step-by-step method by which it’s possible, much like, if I had a crappy plane design and saw it fly, I wouldn’t want people to replicate my crappy plane design, I’d want people to try and design better planes, after updating on the fact that building planes is, in principle, possible.
This goes doubly so if by publishing the exact plane design the FAA would sue me.