[zhoujing204]

The study may well be flawed—small n, selection bias, lack of proper controls, sure. But can we please stop using personal anecdotes to dismiss scientific inquiry?

Arguments like 'well, it works for me,' or 'I took this med and recovered immediately,' or 'I saw X happen right after a vaccine' are not valid refutations. Science is frequently counter-intuitive and often contradicts our personal experience and gut instincts. That is precisely why we rely on the scientific method and statistical rigor—rather than individual perception—to establish evidence.

[nandomrumber]

On the other hand, my life isn’t a double-blind randomised controlled study.

I can’t bifurcate n times and give half of the me’s one treatment and the other half of me’s no treatment, and I especially can’t do that without revealing to myself which group of me’s received the treatment, and which received no treatment or a placebo. Who even know motivates us.

Additionally, what works for some version of me, for example there was a me who was younger and fitter and more appealing to the ladies, may not work for the older version of me who is less young, relies on testosterone supplementation to not be a writhing crying mess on the floor, and hasn’t had a root in 18 months.

That’s why the practice of medicine has always been considered an art and a science.

There’s art in learning to apply the practice of medicine in an effective way.

Also, populations change over time. Older doctors will notice that decades ago every second person came in with problem x, but now the patients of a similar age and similar live experience now seem to be experiencing more y and less x.

The human condition, while at least somewhat consistent insofar as we’re still puzzled by some age old questions, is also a moving target.

[llm_nerd]

This study is tiny and of negligible value. They didn't even try to pretend it's of real value, and instead just dropped the classic "our study clearly demonstrates that people should probably study this stuff". Conditioned norms are by far the most relevant condition for sleep for most people, and sleep studies of tiny durations with tiny sets are basically just noise makers (har har). Even worse, they seem to have specifically excluded people who already use noise machines, ensuring that their participants were conditioned for the silent norm.

Scientific method, statistical rigour...eh, this looks like a headline chasing study.

[zhoujing204]

Sure, you are absolutely right. Even a sloppy study like this still had something useful than any anecdotes.