Wouldn't it be great if cryonics was opt-out? It took me two years to overcome my cryocrastinating.

I realize this is an old post and no one will read this comment... but I just wanted to say thank you. I myself signed up for cyronics just a month ago, but did, for example, wonder - will I be the same person? I still wonder that, but with slightly more perspective.

Let's say 5 people.

What is the smallest effect size you would be able to reliably detect with a test that small?

I have Ekman's training on my computer, and I quickly abandoned it. The low number of recommended training hours and low number of different training samples to me seemed an indication of poor quality. In addition, the only scientific study of efficacy I could find at the time was sponsored by a microexpressions company. Some other evidence I read elsewhere seemed to suggest that the lie-detection bump from microexpressions training was tiny, in the order of a few percentage points.

That said, it would be interesting to me to actually test the training.

We have two groups, one that get's Ekman's training and one that doesn't. We also have a group of liers. Let's say 5 people. Each person in both groups talks to each person in the group of liers. Each person in the group of liers tells the other people a consistent set of truths and lies. The people in the test groups record to each line if they think it's a truth or lie. They don't find out if they are wrong/right. After the training, both groups go through the process again. The set of truths and lies told is the same.

If the training group increased their accuracy significantly more than the control group, it worked. Of course, this method requires too much effort and isn't likely to be that accurate. Hm...

Cognitive-behavioral therapy and Zen meditation are two mental disciplines experimentally shown to yield real improvements.

Does anyone have a link or citation to actual research that supports this claim? It sounds plausible, I just want to check and see exactly how strong the evidence is before investing dozens of hours and/or a few thousand bucks.

I have a massively huge problem with this. Every time a non-fiction author or scientist I respect gives credit to a non-rational I cringe inside. I have to will myself to remember that just because they have a lower rationality threshold, does not automatically discredit their work.

Wow. I don't identify as a cynic or spock, but of the many articles I have read on Less Wrong since I discovered it yesterday, this one is perhaps the most perspective changing.