My guess is simply that almost nothing works, and to the degree that it works it only works a little, and insofar as it works a little it is really time-consuming, and probably reverts to the mean if not actively maintained.
“Adjust your effect size estimates downwards.”
Also, almost nobody is quantitatively tracking what they try, the degree to which they try, wouldn’t know when they’re wrong or are simply performing great contortions in selection bias. So even people who claim they have huge effects can’t actually distinguish the effects from random positive noise. (This also applies to the person mentioned at the end of the post.)
CFAR tried, but it was really expensive, and the results were middling. (They’re best in class for this, still.) From everyone else I demand at least track records.
So: What are you doing differently? I reckon you’re going to publish the follow-up data from your clients from two years ago, soon?
I guess the problem is that some aspects of human life that can be easily changed for a while, but not in long term. As a random example, let’s say reading books—if you told me that the price of success at something is that I may never read a book again, in my entire life, if would probably consider this price too high. But if you told me to stop reading books for a month and focus on doing something else, I would say no problem.
And there are dozen examples like this; for the duration of one-month intense workshop I would be willing to give up reading books, watching movies, meeting friends, who knows what else. Which would create a lot of space, if I did all of that at the same time, and that space could be filled with some kind of productivity, maybe achieving amazing results. But the productivity would be unsustainable precisely because the things I gave up temporarily I am not going to give up forever; and as they return, they will fight for their space.
You can keep pushing people if they are in some kind of cult; if there is constant pressure to prioritize the things the group care about over everything else. That leads to burn out and general unhappiness.
The good solution needs to be sustainable for long term. But it is a problem to figure out what is sustainable and what is not, when many sacrifices genuinely feel okay in short term, especially when a person is enthusiastic about achieving something.
The therapist/coach/whatever should not be judged by what the client does when he leaves the therapy, but what the client does one year later. (Often, the therapist/coach/whatever simply has no idea.) CFAR did that one thing right, by asking people how they were one year after the minicamps.
My guess is simply that almost nothing works, and to the degree that it works it only works a little, and insofar as it works a little it is really time-consuming, and probably reverts to the mean if not actively maintained.
“Adjust your effect size estimates downwards.”
Also, almost nobody is quantitatively tracking what they try, the degree to which they try, wouldn’t know when they’re wrong or are simply performing great contortions in selection bias. So even people who claim they have huge effects can’t actually distinguish the effects from random positive noise. (This also applies to the person mentioned at the end of the post.)
CFAR tried, but it was really expensive, and the results were middling. (They’re best in class for this, still.) From everyone else I demand at least track records.
So: What are you doing differently? I reckon you’re going to publish the follow-up data from your clients from two years ago, soon?
I guess the problem is that some aspects of human life that can be easily changed for a while, but not in long term. As a random example, let’s say reading books—if you told me that the price of success at something is that I may never read a book again, in my entire life, if would probably consider this price too high. But if you told me to stop reading books for a month and focus on doing something else, I would say no problem.
And there are dozen examples like this; for the duration of one-month intense workshop I would be willing to give up reading books, watching movies, meeting friends, who knows what else. Which would create a lot of space, if I did all of that at the same time, and that space could be filled with some kind of productivity, maybe achieving amazing results. But the productivity would be unsustainable precisely because the things I gave up temporarily I am not going to give up forever; and as they return, they will fight for their space.
You can keep pushing people if they are in some kind of cult; if there is constant pressure to prioritize the things the group care about over everything else. That leads to burn out and general unhappiness.
The good solution needs to be sustainable for long term. But it is a problem to figure out what is sustainable and what is not, when many sacrifices genuinely feel okay in short term, especially when a person is enthusiastic about achieving something.
The therapist/coach/whatever should not be judged by what the client does when he leaves the therapy, but what the client does one year later. (Often, the therapist/coach/whatever simply has no idea.) CFAR did that one thing right, by asking people how they were one year after the minicamps.