This has been driving me crazy: about a month or two ago, I started (and kept) seeing various references to a study that basically argued that in many/some fields, the incremental benefit of researching a thing X are lower than doing a literature review of all the studies on X to date. IIRC, the idea was that there is not enough systematization of knowledge going on, and consolidating evidence from various places currently has higher marginal gains than adding yet another individual study...
Or, at least, that's what I think the paper said, because that's the context I kept seeing the references to it in, but I never actually bothered to click on it. And now that I want to, I can't find it! Does anyone happen to know what I'm talking about? I may have seen references to this from:
Astral Codex Ten
José Luis Ricón Fernández de la Puente (@ArtirKel/Nintil)
Other people on Twitter
But my Googling skills have been failing me. Thanks a million!
This has been driving me crazy: about a month or two ago, I started (and kept) seeing various references to a study that basically argued that in many/some fields, the incremental benefit of researching a thing X are lower than doing a literature review of all the studies on X to date. IIRC, the idea was that there is not enough systematization of knowledge going on, and consolidating evidence from various places currently has higher marginal gains than adding yet another individual study...
Or, at least, that's what I think the paper said, because that's the context I kept seeing the references to it in, but I never actually bothered to click on it. And now that I want to, I can't find it! Does anyone happen to know what I'm talking about? I may have seen references to this from:
But my Googling skills have been failing me. Thanks a million!
EDIT: typo in the title