Altitude and child development • Hacker News Board

Re: Altitude and child development

#41

Post by ineptech » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #31

ineptech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was extensively cited, and written by a professional researcher using their real name who has no particular axe to grind - what more could you possibly ask for?

Maybe I’m just bad at their site but I can’t see any name other than Elizabeth, I can’t see their professional credentials nor does it seem likely that a couple of hours work looking into something that at best produces a tiny effect is sufficient to establish a good meta-review of the relevant literature. For example there’s no real attempt to gauge the quality of the papers cited. Reading the report makes me suspec…

a) there's a big prominent link at the top to the author's blog with her credentials

b) "The effect is small and I'm not convinced" is not a reason to doubt the conclusion, it is the conclusion

c) "I don't like the website that posted it" is a pretty lousy reason to dismiss something

Re: Altitude and child development

#42

Post by hytdstd » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #4

I found it more interesting that apparently it's possible to get paid by the hour to do research on subjects like this.

it's very common for professors to do contract work (not for lesswrong though, lol)

Re: Altitude and child development

#43

Post by the_af » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:49 PM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #41

meheleventyone wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I’m just bad at their site but I can’t see any name other than Elizabeth, I can’t see their professional credentials nor does it seem likely that a couple of hours work looking into something that at best produces a tiny effect is sufficient to establish a good meta-review of the relevant literature. For example there’s no real attempt to gauge the quality of the papers cited. Reading the report makes me suspec…

a) there's a big prominent link at the top to the author's blog with her credentials b) "The effect is small and I'm not convinced" is not a reason to doubt the conclusion, it is the conclusion c) "I don't like the website that posted it" is a pretty lousy reason to dismiss something

> c) "I don't like the website that posted it"

It's not the only reason, but it is definitely one. It's part of a kind of "baloney detection kit", inspired by Carl Sagan; or something like the Crackpot Index. You should of course assess claims made by people in circles and websites frequented by cranks, but bear in mind mostly cranks post in those websites.

Likewise, if you read claims in websites where UFO conspiracy theories often post, you may find a nugget of truth, but it'd be healthy to keep a strong dose of skepticism. Reasonable people don't post in UFO conspiracy sites; likewise with LessWrong.

Re: Altitude and child development

#44

Post by ineptech » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #43

ineptech wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) there's a big prominent link at the top to the author's blog with her credentials b) "The effect is small and I'm not convinced" is not a reason to doubt the conclusion, it is the conclusion c) "I don't like the website that posted it" is a pretty lousy reason to dismiss something

> c) "I don't like the website that posted it" It's not the only reason, but it is definitely one. It's part of a kind of "baloney detection kit", inspired by Carl Sagan; or something like the Crackpot Index. You should of course assess claims made by people in circles and websites frequented by cranks, but bear in mind mostly cranks post in those websites. Likewise, if you read claims in websites where UFO conspirac…

First of all, I know a lot of people disagree with lesswrong's consensus opinions on some contentious topics, but comparing it to a UFO site is a stretch. Second, when you dislike a website but see an essay hosted on it get highly upvoted, the skeptical thing to do is to update your opinion of the site, not maintain it despite new evidence to the contrary.