Douglas_Knight comments on Fix it and tell us what you did - Less Wrong

41 Post author: JulianMorrison 23 April 2009 02:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (35)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 24 April 2009 12:07:21AM 1 point [-]

Asking for good bias-correction is an absurd standard of evidence. You don't ask that of most information you use. Moreover, I bet you're very biased on when you think to apply this standard.

It's not entirely clear what pjeby means. If it's just self-experimentation, it's basically a single anecdote and not terribly useful. But I assume that he's talking about his clients, still a biased sample, but as good as it's going to get.

Comment author: pjeby 24 April 2009 12:39:24AM 1 point [-]

It's not entirely clear what pjeby means. If it's just self-experimentation, it's basically a single anecdote and not terribly useful.

The supreme irony of this train of thought is that my original suggestion was for people to apply good evidentiary standards to their self-experiments. So we are now debating whether I have a good standard of evidence for recommending the use of good standards of evidence. ;-)

But I assume that he's talking about his clients, still a biased sample, but as good as it's going to get.

Sort of. I noticed that if I didn't define what I was testing before I tested it, it was easy to end up thinking I'd changed when I hadn't. And I tend to notice that when my clients aren't moving forward in their personal change efforts, it's usually because they're straying off-process, most commonly in not defining what they are changing and sticking to that definition until they produce a result. (As opposed to deciding midstream that "something else" is the problem.)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 24 April 2009 03:04:41AM 1 point [-]

"not terribly useful" was wrong. It should have been something more like "not generalizable to other people." We certainly agreed with your standard of evidence, but there's a big gap between a failure mode likely enough to be worth adding steps to fix and an "extremely high risk."

This post makes it sounds like there's a lot of room for confirmation bias, but that doesn't bother me so much; in particular, it is a lot better than if it's just you.