Because it’s an individualized approach that is a WIP and if I just write it down 99% of people will execute it badly.
Why is that a problem? Do you mean this in the sense of “if I do this, it will lead to people making false claims that my experiment doesn’t replicate” or “if I do this, nothing good will come of it so it’s not even worth the effort of writing”.
As someone who runs a lot of self-experiments and occasionally helps others, I’m disappointed in but sympathetic to this approach. People are complicated: the right thing to do probably is try a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. But people really, really want the answer to be simple, and will round down complicated answers until they are simple enough, then declare the original protocol a failure when their simplification doesn’t work.
I think it would be valuable for George to write up the list of interventions they considered, and a case report on how he fine tuned the procedure for himself. Possibly valuable enough to pay for it. But I think he’s doing the right thing by refusing to write out a formal protocol at this stage.
I mean if I write this it will sound very weird and not be followable because it includes things like:
Do this <weird practice> but find areas with low proprioception and do it there using something like <here’s an odd sub technique I did—but you kinda have to asses what works best for you>
I am trying to replicate this with more people right now so I’d rather not dilute the intervention specifically—hence why this post was not about what I did as much as why one ought to expect increasing IQ, in general, works.
Why is that a problem? Do you mean this in the sense of “if I do this, it will lead to people making false claims that my experiment doesn’t replicate” or “if I do this, nothing good will come of it so it’s not even worth the effort of writing”.
As someone who runs a lot of self-experiments and occasionally helps others, I’m disappointed in but sympathetic to this approach. People are complicated: the right thing to do probably is try a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. But people really, really want the answer to be simple, and will round down complicated answers until they are simple enough, then declare the original protocol a failure when their simplification doesn’t work.
I think it would be valuable for George to write up the list of interventions they considered, and a case report on how he fine tuned the procedure for himself. Possibly valuable enough to pay for it. But I think he’s doing the right thing by refusing to write out a formal protocol at this stage.
I mean if I write this it will sound very weird and not be followable because it includes things like:
I am trying to replicate this with more people right now so I’d rather not dilute the intervention specifically—hence why this post was not about what I did as much as why one ought to expect increasing IQ, in general, works.