> They are lightweight overviews of interesting insights, appealing to many people (enough so that some expend energy loudly criticizing the works), and providing launching points for those so motivated to further pursue the subject
This blog got posted to HN. The first point in the post says:
> Exercise has such a profound effect on our happiness and well-being that it's actually been proven to be an effective strategy for overcoming depression. In a study cited in Shawn Achor's book, The Happiness Advantage, three groups of patients treated their depression with either medication, exercise, or a combination of the two. The results of this study really surprised me. Although all three groups experienced similar improvements in their happiness levels to begin with, the follow up assessments proved to be radically different:
A blog cites a pop sci book, which cites a single study. And this is "proof" of a treatment for depression. It feels like it should be true. it repeats something that many people say ("exercise helps depression") and it has some sciencey stuff to support it (endorphins!). It's not homoeopathy or crystal healing.
The main problem is that it is not clear if exercise works for treating depression.
Relevant quote from the current HN thread History Must Be Curved:
"Science doesn’t follow a mythic positivist ideal but the plural scientific methods described by Feyerabend: a mixture of empiricism, flights of fancy, intuition, aesthetics, doggedness, and jealousy. Scientific theories are underdetermined. Any finite set of facts can support multiple theories, and for a long time the available facts were equally explained by geostationary or geomobile models."
But these books do not present the geostationary and geomobile models, and explain the differences and how the data fits.
They put out a book "GEOSTATIONARY: The Blah of blah blah", and they talk about a tiny subset of the supporting evidence. They won't mention geomobile, or if they do they won't accept that facts at the time are explained equally by both but to destroy geomobile and the gullible saps who believe it.
Your quote argues persuasively against the books of Gladwell, which are semi-truthy, using Science to sound authoritative and accurate but without accepting any of the fluidity of actual science.
What use is an overview if it's wrong?
Here's an example of the problem:
(http://www.social-consciousness.com/2013/10/ten-simple-thing...)
This blog got posted to HN. The first point in the post says:
> Exercise has such a profound effect on our happiness and well-being that it's actually been proven to be an effective strategy for overcoming depression. In a study cited in Shawn Achor's book, The Happiness Advantage, three groups of patients treated their depression with either medication, exercise, or a combination of the two. The results of this study really surprised me. Although all three groups experienced similar improvements in their happiness levels to begin with, the follow up assessments proved to be radically different:
A blog cites a pop sci book, which cites a single study. And this is "proof" of a treatment for depression. It feels like it should be true. it repeats something that many people say ("exercise helps depression") and it has some sciencey stuff to support it (endorphins!). It's not homoeopathy or crystal healing.
The main problem is that it is not clear if exercise works for treating depression.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004366/exercise-for-depressi...
> Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy for reducing symptoms of depression.
[...]
> The reviewers also note that when only high-quality studies were included, the difference between exercise and no therapy is less conclusive.
People do not investigate further. They repeat these factoids and they believe they're promoting science.