Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonmesmith | Hacker News Reader

This looked interesting and then I read the following in the press release: “Dr Hill said the research sampled 15 participants of varying age, occupational and education backgrounds in England and the Republic of Ireland, who had been put on furlough or asked to work from home.”

So the hypothesis is based on 15 people, in one region of the world, in a very specific circumstance. The authors admit the research is limited, but if you don’t read deeply into the press release you might come away thinking this finding—if you can call it that—is much more solid than the actual survey methodology would support.

View on HN

Why leave out the context?

> Dr Hill said the research sampled 15 participants of varying age, occupational and education backgrounds in England and the Republic of Ireland, who had been put on furlough or asked to work from home. He said the survey was relatively limited and that it also would be valuable to examine, for example, the role that material conditions and social class played in people’s experience of boredom.

> “We think these initial findings will resonate with so many people’s experiences of the pandemic and their use of social media to alleviate boredom, and we would like to see this research taken further,” he said.

Indeed, those findings are good prompt for the researchers to continue their research, but not something you publish as the results!

Why not? Just because it's published doesn't mean it implies that it's found an absolute truth that can't ever be changed or further analyzed.

You don’t publish because basically anything can be proven at n=15. I could probably go perform another study right now at n=15 and if I chose my variables right I could determine that social media has no effect whatsoever. And as much as you or I know not to read too much into this one study, there are plenty more people who won’t read too closely or carefully.

I'll put it bluntly. I don't care about people who read a single study and take it as gospel. Science would be nothing without all the studies that are published about every single topic. Even the most important findings are built on studies done before them.

> basically anything can be proven at n=15

Nothing was proven. The paper is literally a philosophical discussion about Heidegger leaning on a survey. If you think that proves anything, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a data point, nothing more and nothing less. It's an interesting perspective worth thinking about and investigating further.

You may not care, but science as a whole has a responsibility to do more help than harm. Anyways I feel like we’re kind of arguing past each other. I agree studies should be done; I just don’t think people should be getting news articles written up at n=15; that seems deceptive.

I'm ambivalent about the news article. It can be misleading, but I also wouldn't have found the paper and read through the whole thing without it, which I felt was a really interesting and valuable read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com