[HNJohnC]

"We tested two adult samples using two different sequence learning tasks."

Two? Nothing to see here.

[wdewind]

This attitude is not helpful and actively damaging. Small sample sizes in science do serve a purpose: to get larger studies funded.

It's as if the top comment to every ShowHN post was: "Not at $200mm in funding. Nothing to see here."

[HNJohnC]

Actively damaging? A little dramatic perhaps? I didn't say it doesn't serve a purpose, I said there is nothing to see here. Quite literally. Until they do a larger study why is it news?

[wdewind]

It is actively damaging to the community for you to take snipes at studies when the reason you are criticizing the study is not only unnecessary criticism that any layman could provide, it is actually a misinterpretation of the study. You didn't add anything to the discussion.

As for why it is news, a lot of hackers are interested in mental health and mindfulness+meditation specifically and would be interested in more cutting edge news about it, rather than what ends up in the NYTimes 8 months later.

[briandh]

Two samples, not two subjects. Still not definitive, but definitely "something to see" if their methodology holds up (I don't have access).

[sangfroid]

I just got a copy of the paper from the researcher. They used 16 study participants. Still not a huge sample size, but big enough for consideration.

[bayesianhorse]

I think they mean two different studies, not two subjects.