[TekMol]

User counters 13000 word meta study by simply stating the opposite without giving any arguments, sources or studies.

Is there a forum like Hacker News, but with no "talking out of your ass"?

How could the mechanics of a forum be set up to achieve this?

The thought "Is it a long term effect or just temporary?" is totally fine. But then just posting out of your ass does not help anyobody. A quick search for "months" in the meta study shows that they looked at effects during the 6 months after the intervention.

So I think many people together could come up with an interesting discussion. But it would mean everybody has to do some work.

[theaussiestew]

He gave details but you provided no rebuttal of his rebuttal. I would agree with him in the sense that just neutral observation often fixes the problem, but often can be a form of spiritually bypassing your problems. For example, if we're anxious from a lack of income, but all we do is neutrally observe, that's not solving the root problem.

[klmlryc11]

Meta studies study individual papers which in turn are essentially asking people if they feel happier if they do X. Anecdotally.

This particular one does a lot of math which no one has the patience to verify. It just sounds smart, like the papers on nature.com that advertise probiotics.

If you trick yourself into being happy while being exploited by the system it may indeed work (that's why rulers liked Christianity as a tool for pacifying the masses). But you are not solving the underlying issues.

[mrguyorama]

>How could the mechanics of a forum be set up to achieve this?

Well, the way you achieve a forum where nobody talks out of your ass is by making a forum without a submit button.

However I agree, it's absurd the level of quackery that takes over HN in these circumstances, as if one SV weirdo's magic mushroom trip invalidates decades of genuine research on what makes people stressed and the ways to mitigate that stress.

Nope, apparently we are just all following the wrong religion!

[astrange]

> User counters 13000 word meta study by simply stating the opposite without giving any arguments, sources or studies.

Well, it's quite true that sometimes instead of developing stress resilience you should simply get rid of the source of the stress.

[hombre_fatal]

Yes but that’s a trivial claim.

[miroljub]

Care to claim something substantial and contribute to the discussion in a non-trivial way?

[astrange]

I think it's the kind of obvious thing you still need to remind yourself of.

[hombre_fatal]

Trivial claims aren't useful responses because we can just grant them.

That mindfulness-based programs show promise in reducing distress isn't changed by the fact that the people who can simply remove their stress sources from their life. Go ahead and do that. Now let's talk about everyone else.

[celdon25]

> How could the mechanics of a forum be set up to achieve this?

I’ve seen the best results with niche email lists that actively moderate the discussion quality. But the results are mixed and I eventually decided that it’s a lost cause. People who don’t bring anything to the table tend to have more time on their hands to post nonsense.

[verteu]

A minimum word limit on comments could help. I'd much prefer "in-depth and dismissive" comments over "brief and dismissive" ones.

[miroljub]

> User counters 13000 word meta study by simply stating the opposite without giving any arguments, sources or studies.

I am giving my opinion on a random forum, not writing a study about mindfulness. I didn't even say anything controversial, a glance at the wikipedia page would list a bunch of criticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness#Concerns_and_criti...

> Is there a forum like Hacker News, but with no "talking out of your ass"? > How could the mechanics of a forum be set up to achieve this?

For example, you could try not to be an asshole and not to "talk out of your ass". Be a change you want to see.

Btw, in your case, a mindfulness practice could actually help. Instead of pretending to be an angry internet gestapo, you can try some basic breathing practices for a few minutes.

[verteu]

> I didn't even say anything controversial, a glance at the wikipedia page would list a bunch of criticism.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness#Concerns_and_criti

Nothing in that Wiki link supports your claim that mindfulness doesn't fight the root cause of distress. The 'Scholarly Research' subsection says reviewers want more reproducing studies with larger sample sizes and better randomization (they always do), the 'Shortcomings' subsection claims it's too commercialized and departs from Buddhist practice (so what?), and the 'Risks' subsection describes some side effects that are proven rare in the literature.

The Buddhist critiques are closest, but are largely framed as a critique of authenticity rather than efficacy.

[tuyiown]

Ha, but your are both right with the wrong behavior.

You're entitled to you tone, and your initial comment is valid, yes, but it's way to much assertive. Respecting people you're discussing with implies two things: strong assertion needs objective backup, opinions comes with deference.

If not, then, people feeling disrespected are entitled to their (civil) call for proper etiquette, whatever how it stings your ego. You both failed.

[unsubstantiated]

>How could the mechanics of a forum be set up to achieve this?

Asking people to post their work and downvoting/flagging/banning them if they refuse.