Hacker News Reader

Though I fundamentally agree with you, especially on the silly claims about body language/quantitative claims about money spent on chairs, beds etc., I think it's important to realise that, in life, we constantly have to make decisions and:-

* There simply isn't enough time to thoroughly research everything on a scientific basis, not to mention that a large number of decisions must be made on things for which there simply isn't any good scientific data.

* Many questions simply lie outside the scope of scientific investigation - science (at least for the time being - things will get interesting when we are better able to model the brain) cannot determine answers to a great many philosophical questions for one, and, perhaps more controversially, there are questions where the number of factors involved simply make make scientific investigation either impractical or irrelevant - for example, determining whether agile actually makes a difference to dev team performance, or whether one language is more productive than another (and I know we'd all like the answer to that one :-).

It is very hard to control for the vast number of factors in a human endeavour - I am certain this is something not simply limited to computing but in fact applicable to many engineering disciplines.

In summary - though anecdote is scientifically useless, it is sometimes all we have to go on to make a decision. Just don't talk about it like it's scientific.

I agree entirely. There's lots of great advice in the post. Many things are logistically very difficult to study, and in general, "happiness" is a tough variable to quantify.

Advice like "perhaps you could consider spending your money to live closer to work" doesn't require citation. Nor does "self-promotion works". I go to my peers and family and ask for advice on problems and decisions and I'm not looking for citations but their advice best on their life experience. In no way am I diminishing this.

However, A cheap chair and mattress may end up costing you 10-20x in doctor's bills. is purporting fact. It looks to the casual observer that this is backed by some study. Using numbers implies something has been measured. Yet there is no citation. This 'fact' may be read, repeated, regurgitated and enter in to folklore, when in fact likely this is someone just proffering their opinion.

This is actually harmful and just encourages the kind of "common sense or wisdom" that the original question was trying to avoid.

Yes and, perhaps not clearly, I said that in mentioning the silliness of being quantitive about it and in the summary remark - though maybe not putting enough emphasis on it - stating something as if it is scientific fact when it's just pulled out of your ass is not only misleading, it's bordering on plain evil. No better way to a. mislead and b. discredit science.

We are most definitely agreed on that point :-)

Oh, spare us. Playing at Mr. Citation Needed is not a form of smartness and is in fact a pernicious sort of bias. If you are too afraid of being wrong, you'll miss out on the benefits of being right.

On the other hand there is a lot of gunk out there which everyone "knows to be right" which in fact isn't. Quite often a scientific test with documented results is not a bad thing to have.

The problem is that the "advice" might do more harm than good, even though good was intended.

Skin care is a prime example of this; people recommend what works for them, but these products will, de facto, not work for some.

This is something that goes against a lot of HN's start-up philosophy, so it might meet some more disagreement. A lot of the advice dispensed on HN are maxims - take them or leave them - and the same thing applies.

I'm not playing Mr. Citation.

If you re-read my comment I explicitly say that there is some great information here. When people simply give advice based on their history - things like "use your money to live closer to work" is good advice. You don't need a citation for this; it's just someone's advice and it's good advice. "Perhaps you haven't considered the great benefits from using your money to cut down your commute time; you may reflect how negative the daily commute is" is an excellent suggestion.

However the specific advice I quoted, e.g. "Buy a more expensive bed", "eat 'good' food", is useless, potentially harmful advice without citation.

Already there are responses to my parent comment about how they found an in-expensive bed is actually preferrable. It would be infinitely more useful if someone actually discussed recent research in to different beds as advice. Anecdotal recommendations in this area are useless and ironically they propagate the same folklore of 'common wisdom' that this quora question specifically mentioned in the title: "advice... against common sense or wisdom".

No, actually she/he makes a really good point. How much wisdom do we accept at face value? How much of it is actually true?

Why is it that more expensive mattresses = better sleep?

My experience is that it's not about the cost of an individual chair, or mattress, or desk, or whatever. It's about the cost of the process. The ideal mattress for you, today, might only cost a few hundred bucks, but you may have to put half a dozen of those cheap mattresses to the test to find it. And then your needs might change, because people grow older, and you'll need a different cheap mattress.

Your needs are going to change from day to day or from year to year. So what you want from furniture that's built to last is: Adjustability (you can change the height, the tension, or the angle without sacrificing structural soundness or necessary rigidity) and/or flexibility (the furniture is suitable for a wide range of postures and uses; a classic example is memory foam, which slowly adjusts itself to you). Not to mention: Portability and resale value, because you'll be auditioning a lot of stuff.

Consider desks, for example. At any given moment in my life, including this one, I could take my computer desk and replace it with a strategically stacked pile of cheap cardboard boxes. And, indeed, when I get a crazy new idea for a room arrangement (standing desks!) I tend to prototype it with cardboard boxes. But: The cardboard boxes are risky; they tend to fall apart over time, or fail very suddenly at moments of high stress. They also have poor structural characteristics; typing on a platform built out of cardboard, for example, can be quite unsatisfying, because it is squishy. And most importantly, the cardboard boxes don't adjust well at all. To change the height or position of my monitor or keyboard I have to find other boxes, or take everything apart and restack. Ergonomics is a game of inches. The ability to easily adjust something by an inch one way or the other is very valuable, and you are going to pay for that, either by buying something adjustable, or by auditioning two or three versions of everything, or by spending a lot of time jury-rigging things.

What is it with the mattresses? I'm only 33 but I've slept on pretty much any surface that's nominally softer than a floorboard and I've generally slept well. Can the mattress really make the difference if you have sleeping problems?

Yes? If you pay any attention at all to anecdotal reports, it very obviously makes a big difference for a lot of people. Anecdotal reports are what the OP is railing against though, I guess.

why is it that more expensive mattresses = better sleep? Cite the evidence showing that high thread-count sheets = better sleep, which in tern laeds to improvements in waking life.

Sample of one: Due to serious health issues, I got rid of my expensive mattress and high thread count sheets and now sleep on the floor with no bedding. I sleep way better these days and overall quality of life is dramatically better. :-P

Sample of two: within reasonable limits, the harder the surface, the better I sleep. Best sleep I have is usually on a $5 polyfoam mattress on the floor. Best chair for me: $10 exercise ball.

So maybe time to call the bluff of the fancy-mattress-chair-industrial complex :)

I think just further's the OP's point. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." What you are saying is not unreasonable, but testimonials are the lowest from of evidence.

I'm sure you can find at least a few very convinced people to tell you sleeping on jagged rocks is the best decision they ever made. And they wouldn't be lying, but that doesn't mean I should expect the same results.

I think this quote is often used beyond its range of validity. There is value in pointing out counterexamples when someone presents a general theory that you think is false.

The take-home point for me was not "spend more money on a mattress" but to make sure I had a "good" one. For me a "good" mattress is one comfortable for me (my preferences happen to be similar to yours rather than the answerer).

Right, but it could be that what first appears uncomfortable may still give you the best nights sleep; perhaps your immediate 'comfort rating' is a poor indicator.

Lying on the hard floor isn't comfortable for me but quite possibly I may sleep better.

You would be surprised to find out how interesting it is to read a long discussion [1] on the physics of the ideal bed. And how hard the physics is considering how obvious the answer seems at first.

Essentially distribution of force and responsiveness in ability to mold to give a minimum amount of pressure per area of skin is what is key. A perfectly molded extremely hard surface would be very comfortable while you remained perfectly still. Soft tends to be better because it responds to changes in position more readily. But too soft doesn't actually allow a proper distribution of force so hard but yielding is ideal. Hard also resists movements less and since changing positions is another way the body counters excessive pressure, it is ideal for people who utilize this feature. For those who move more this is a better compromise. What is the best bed packs a lot of physical punch, it will lead you all the way from biology to quantum mechanics if you so chose.

[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=464

"Physics" has no real relevance to my issue. Microbiology is the main issue (edit: plus chemistry). It's a long story. Short version: Doctors were all too happy to condemn me to death. I was all too happy to politely tell them to shove it. I'm currently off all drugs and healthier than I have ever been in my life.

Peace.

With respect to the high thread count thing - I recently went and bought some (previous sheets basically worn out) and I wouldn't say that it improves my sleep.

What it does do though, is it feels like a luxury good.

It is this mental thing/process of giving yourself a treat, or treating yourself like 'royalty' that gives you a little boost. And it didn't cost all that much either.

Similarly, with the last pairs of jeans that I bought, I paid to have the length adjusted. Previously I'd just rolled up the cuffs(?) and they get a bit daggy. Despite the adjustment costing almost as much as the jeans did, my guilty secret is that I get a ridiculous amount of pleasure from looking down and seeing perfect length jeans.

Treat yourself, you're worth it, and nobody else will do it for you...

The sheets you bought may feel like a luxury good, but that's not necessarily correlated with the thread count.

Thread count is much less important than the quality of the cotton/fiber and the quality of the weaving. Even shops that sell sheets admit to this, saying that thread count is a metric, but is primarily a marketing tool.

More: http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2010/01/22/buying-linen-thread-c...

What is good diet? There is no common agreement (see: high carb/high protein/high fat discussions).

There's no consensus on what kind of diet is good for losing weight, but there's much more consistent evidence on what a healthy diet is: high in fruits and vegetables, unprocessed grains, low in saturated fat, salt, and refined carbohydrates.

You're proving the original point, since there are lots who argue that a healthy diet is high in naturally saturated fat and low in unprocessed grains.

The Mayo recommends limiting saturated fats [1]. So does the American Heart Association [2]. Also the World Health Organization [3]. According to Wikipedia (I haven't checked the links here), Health Canada, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the UK Food Standards Agency, the Food and Drugs Board of Ghana, and 6 other national agencies recommend consuming less saturated fats [4].

I Googled a little bit for articles challenging this consensus, the most scientific seemed be [5]. It cites studies that show no negative effects of saturated fats. However, the only evidence for a positive impact is cross-country comparisons, which have many uncontrolled variables, and mechanistic explanations without epidemiological backing.

So, the argument against saturated fats is not unanimous, but I think it's fair to say that it's a consensus. As for a healthy diet being low in unprocessed grains, we'll have to leave that for another day.

[1] http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/NU00262

[2] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fat...

[3] http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Dietary_recommend...

[5] http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefit...

EDIT: fixed linebreaks

Conversely, the only evidence for a negative impact is cross-country comparisons with many uncontrolled variables. And those studies show a high correlation with trans-fat and/or white sugar/white flour. But those studies are the eventual basis for the recommendations you listed.

If you want studies/references, Gary Taubes' work would be a good place to start. Good Calories/Bad Calories seems to be approximately 1/3 bibliography.

I agree with you except on the point of body language. It doesn't have to be mind reading, neuro-linguistic programming magic. Simple things like paying attention to tone and volume, position of limbs and posture, eye movement and facial expression will tell you a lot more than simple words. Even clothes and how a person uses words (length, timing and vocabulary) will be a hint. Control of this is what separates the "wooden" actors from the top actrosses. Profilers and poker players leverage this too. It draws from empathy and you basically trying to perform a statistical inference from the set of features in front of you to guess with high probability the true internal state and mood.

A lot of people have tells too, default motions you do when you are not comfortable. I am trying to unprogram mine.

Just to clarify, my only 'point' on body language was that writing "Study body language and you'll be pretty shocked at how often peoples' spoken words contradict their telltale non-verbal cues." un-sourced is unhelpful and doesn't answer the question.

I wasn't stating that there was not scientific basis behind the study of body language; only that if you are going to claim it, I would like to see it backed up with some science.

---

However if you like to discuss the specifics I think it's a very interesting topic. Certainly there are some cues that can be garnered from the study of body language, although from everything I've read the role it can play is over-stated.

Interesting choice of examples: I'm a professional poker player and the role of live 'tells' is generally assumed by non-player playing populace to be much more important than reality[1]. Everything I've read recently about criminal profiling has thrown it in to a negative light and questioned it's validity[2].

A lot of NLP has entered in to 'commonly held beliefs' or is now considered 'intuitive'. When someone is lying they look to the left to access the right hemisphere; this type of hand shake implies dominance; all that jazz. This stuff is easy to test clinically and there is just not the evidence in support[3]. As you brought up eye movement, one study sourced in the Wikipedia article shown no evidence of "a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues"

This stuff is very easy to believe and is certainly 'intuitive'. But to my knowledge it has no scientific basis; but I'm certainly interested to read anything that shows otherwise.

1. http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/negreanu30.htm

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/15/criminal-profiling-... one article I read recently.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Cr...

I agree completely.

It's very frustrating to deal with people who apply NLP or lay-CBT on a regular basis. Especially when you are trying to have a rational conversation and they are wasting time trying to "learn about sub-modalities" or apply auditory anchors to things like acceptance or rejectance.

One person I work with occasionally very clearly thinks of himself as talented in mind control by applying these things. However, from the outside it's very apparent that they have simply poisoned his perspective to make him believe he is being successful.

In short, I wish people would stop wasting time propagating pseudoscience.

I am not arguing with you since I agree. I am just saying you are going after the extreme and ignoring the much more useful and mundane aspects to non-verbal communication. All I am saying is that there are non-verbal components when two or more people are communicating and it is useful to pay attention to it. Being aware of these allow you to be sensitive to the emotional undertones, something whose usefulness should not be discounted. Basically empathizing. And I too think NLP or stuff like - if someone looks left twice while blinking their nose - is complete garbage.

I am not defending extremes like NLP or the far out profiling where you try to get in the mind of someone. By profiling - maybe I mislabelled it - I mean basic stuff that every police officer is trained to look for as indicators of nervousness or over defensiveness (indicators but not conclusive proof - a person might just be easily jarred). Certainly bluffing and reading tells are overstated but that does not mean they are useless and can't be used to a good level by expert players (as an aside making a bot that plays good poker is my hobby so I agree on the power of finding patterns in data as key and those who use holdem manager can also attest). Also by tells I mean little things that your mother or S.O. will know about you when you are thinking, nervous, excited etc.

Consider, if someone you know is yelling with an angry tone can you tell if they are pretending to be angry or are really angry with good confidence? The same sentence read differently can have a world of difference. When you see someone can you have a good idea if they are confident? Stuff like downward gaze, slouched shoulders, shaky voice are the signals I speak of, any one of which may not be useful but taken together push you firmly into a certain distribution. You control this and you can have an influence on how people perceive you. No need to seek to NLP nonsense.

I would say on the diet/food thing, learning to cook properly for myself was one of the best choices I've made. Once you know how to cook you can safely ignore fad diets and you'll intuitively understand how to eat well, because you'll see exactly what goes into everything you eat.

You're missing the point.

First nice =! expensive. It's a subjective term meant to allow you to find your own definition. The whole point is one you seem to be in need of (don't focus on "specs" or "definitives" and just find a bed and bedding that you love. If it is more expensive then it's money well spent.)

Re: farmer v doctor- again you're focusing on the "detail" of the advice and while totally missing the point. The point of that advice is that prevention (whatever you personally define as such) and taking care of your long-term health is a far better option than waiting until something breaks.

You seem to want this advice to offer the exact recipe for a better life. You expect it to contain the scientifically proven facts. Unfortunately that's not how good advice works. Good advice gives you perspective while leaving the details up to you.

<mild_snark>

Finally most of the advice deals with this thing called "joy". you'll find that scientifically speaking there is no agreed upon universally measurable "joy" metric. In lieu of science I recommend creating your own totally subjective definition of joy and applying it to as much of your life as possible. I have no facts to give you as to why this improves your life so you're going to have to trust me... But it does. Vastly.

</mild_snark>

And that is the big picture that each piece of advice is offering you.

"First nice =! expensive. It's a subjective term meant to allow you to find your own definition."

The words 'cheap' and 'expensive' appeared 6 times in the article. I guess cheap can be used metaphorically but generally they are used to describe specifically the cost of the item. So I'm really not clear what point you are making. At no point did I confuse the concepts of 'nice' and 'expensive'.

"The point of that advice is that prevention [...] and taking care of your long-term health is a far better option than waiting until something breaks."

No, the point made was that prevention is orders of magnitude cheaper. It's you that seems to be confusing cost with a more subjective 'better'.

As for your mild_snark remark, all I can say is you've clearly not read my comments in this thread.

The topic of the question was:

"life lessons [that] are unintuitive or go against common sense or wisdom"

'prevention is better than waiting until something breaks', 'spend money on a good bed', are these really unintuitive? Do they go against common-sense?

As a hypothetical example, I would consider a good response to this question would be a well-cited example of how in fact a really cheap bed made out cardboard in fact gave the best nights sleep, or how actually it's a lot cheaper to ignore diet and deal with it later.

> > You can accomplish more if you work less and sleep more. Hypothetically a well-rested person working 55-hour work weeks can usually outperform a sleep-deprived person working 80-hour work weeks in terms of quality, all else equal (specifically for knowledge work).

You're right: the research shows that a 35 hour workweek is ideal for knowledge workers. This has been repeatedly confirmed in various studies. See PeopleWare or Slack, both by DeMarco.

Relevant StackOverflow thread: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1600071/are-there-any-ser...

> > Spoken communication has a massive non-verbal component. Study body language and you'll be pretty shocked at how often peoples' spoken words contradict their telltale non-verbal cues.

> Citation please. A lot of the 'non-verbal communication' stuff (read: NLP) is considered unscientific gumf.

Objecting to this is simply inane. NLP may be bunk, but if you truly believe that what people mean === what they say, I feel sorry for you.

> Objecting to this is simply inane. NLP may be bunk, but if you truly believe that what people mean === what they say, I feel sorry for you.

You've completely misunderstood what I said. I don't know how to begin to respond as it has no bearing whatsoever to what I wrote.

So you may downvote me, but i never 'objected to it', I never said "if you truly believe that what people mean === what they say". Suggesting I did is missing the entire point of my post. It's not about whether you agree with something or not, it's that answering a question specifically asking for 'something un-intuitive or not common wisdom' with banal un-cited generalities is quite worthless.

I guess you will have to continue to feel sorry for me.

I may have missed the point, but if so, so did a lot of other people. If you meant to say "this is true but trivial", the phrase "unscientific gumf" was a poor choice.

I gave you some citations for your other question. I'll assume you meant to thank me for clarifying the matter and just forgot.

It's like we are talking about two entirely different subjects. Let me state it as clearly as I can:

- I was making absolutely no comment about whether something is true or not.

- I'm not saying that what was written was incorrect. And I'm not saying "this is true but trivial". Again, I'm making absolutely zero comment about whether what was said was accurate.

- My point was, if you are going to answer a question asking for advice that's 'un-intuitive or not common knowledge', making over-simplified, bland recommendations on certain subjects without citation does not answer the question and actually makes things worse.

- When I said things like "where's the citation?", I wasn't actually asking for HN posters to respond to back it up. I'm not strongly opposed to, say, the reading of body language. (although it's certainly interesting to go off on a tangent and discuss some specific points - I've commented on this topic below in the discussion).

- Instead I was using a rhetorical device to demonstrate that the lack of clarification and citation just further spreads unscientific 'intuitive' folklore.

That people are actually providing citations to something and supporting a point actually supports my argument, do you see?

If you now take this understanding and re-read your first response, you can see the whole "well I feel sorry for you" thing just doesn't jive at at all to this sub-thread of discussion.

It's like we are talking about two entirely different subjects.

Story of my marriage. Some folks just have very incompatible communication styles. At such times, more clarification often just muddies the water more. I hope that is not the case here.

Peace.

Can you point us to some authoritative research proving that the personal experience of smart individuals is neither interesting nor valuable?

Firstly, this is an appeal to authority[1]. Just because someone is 'smart' doesn't mean tehy are any better it advising someone in an area where their speciality doesn't lie. A successful business-man discussing correct bedding choice or dietary recommendations.

Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof.

Thirdly, I didn't say it wasn't interesting; if you read my comment I explicitly said large parts of the post were interesting and valuable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I have a suspicion that change, any change, has a placebo effect. Does anyone know of any studies done to test this?

Presumably, what you are describing is an n=1 instance of the Hawthorne Effect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect