The Limits of Neuroplasticity
sciencebasedmedicine.org
sciencebasedmedicine.org
But...I also blame the academic journals. Why is it published in the current form when the study was only completed by 18 people. How come the peer reviewers did not insist on toning down the over hyped conclusions. Maybe they should have gone further and refused to publish until a more extensive and reliable follow up study was performed.
In short, the academic world has to stop publishing such marginal results before we blame the media for picking them up and adding another layer or hyperbole.
I didn't read the study in depth, but the problem you describe is widespread and well-known. Well-known doesn't mean solved, so perhaps you have a better solution?
One option might come from clever experimental design, in which subjects do not know the hypothesis you wish to test. The problem is that this is often guessable - i.e. here subjects might not have known that AP was being tested, but they might have believed mental performance was, and if they thought they were in the treatment group they might have extra confidence, which could confound the results. That's hard to design around in practice, though.
Meanwhile no superpowers were observed.
Yes, this is what made me boggle when this was posted on LessWrong. l33t mindhacking with valproate without close medical supervision is a Darwinian move.