Given that the placebo effect is a well-documented meta-effect, to what degree can we suggest that any particular weak psychological effect is real and not placebo? This is not rhetorical; to what degree do you believe that psychology even exists as a reasonable experimental science? The main lesson of these meta-analyses and examinations of statistics is that we cannot trust our minds to be honest.
Your failure to be cynical in the face of ever-mounting evidence is a clear sign that you are failing to show the skepticism demanded of sincere scientists. From [0] linked upthread:
> This means, presumably after about Jan 1st 2025 utilizing willpower will increase the available resources to utilize in willpower tasks. This in turn will require us to hold back from utilizing our willpower in order to prevent exponential amplification in a loop… However, holding back from utilizing willpower itself requires willpower, leading to actually super-exponential ego growth. Shortly after midnight Jan 1 2025 all humans will vanish in a blinding flash of pure ego.
Clearly something is wrong here; clearly ego depletion, as described by the literature of psychology, does not exist. (Or I am about to write a lot of code in the next few years!)
The thread-starter you are criticizing was obliquely referring to several well-known failures of the psychologist community: power poses [1], priming [2], and more beliefs about food than you knew you ever held [3].
As somebody elsewhere says, the point is indeed that perhaps it's all rubbish. Do you have a coherent reason to believe, or is it something taken on faith?
[0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/11/19/break-out-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing
[2] https://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psycho...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink