Comment · Thu, November 13, 2014 · Ceretropic
How does /r/nootrpics feel about anecdotal reports?
Original post in this thread
smellybaconreader · 9 points
Inspired by this thread over in /r/psychology, I'm curious how this community views anecdotal evidence. Sift through any thread in this subreddit and you'll find dozens of anecdotal nootropic reports. To me, that's frustrating.
I can't help but to agree with the posters over in that thread who are decidely against anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of scientific evidence; it's notoriously unreliable, and borderline useless. Pretty much the only value I see is to generate hypotheses which can be scientifically tested.
What do you guys think?
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Also, please excuse my painful typo in the title.
What they were answering
chuuun · 3 points
Sometimes a study gets posted, I read it, and I think "Yes, there is that." I'll go find out more about it, look up whatever is involved in understanding it, or work towards what it seems to be hinting at. Posting questions is rare because I like to satisfy my own curiosities.
It's like research posts are their own type and one of the characteristics is not having many comments because there's not much people have to say about them. Nothing to do with liking or disliking. I guess I approach them as a news feed for people who like learning. It's quality content.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
Yeah, I think a lot of people do that too. But you don't complain about the other posts. I mean it does get annoying with some of the anecdotal posts all the time, or basic questions that have been answered a lot. However, I also understand that there are new people getting into nootropics all the time, so there is always going to be some level of basic questions/posts. Everyone's understanding is not advancing at the same rate. So while some of us may know a lot, others may know next to nothing. I try and frame my perspective of posts in that light.