Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

Whenever you read a paper creating a new term (like "Blue Zones") -- you can guarantee that the author also has a book out with the same name.

And so... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1426209487

They usually also have a company with the same name that sells speaking engagements or consulting... https://www.bluezones.com/

And of course, you need a modestly astroturfed Wikipedia article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone

And don't forget a TED Talk! https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100

View on HN

I understand that you consider this a bad thing, but why?

Why shouldn't a person who believes they discovered some phenomenon name it, write books and give talks on it?

Exactly. Does anyone discount Newtonian physics because the author published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica

"Registered trade mark"?!

Because it creates a conflict of interest, where their income depends on the continued significance and validity of their research results.

And when a researcher this fanatically believes in their own research, were they properly free of biases going into the research? Is writing the book the consequence of amazing research results, or did they plan to write the book from the start (maybe seeing it as the only way to make investment into the research worthwhile)?

The conflict of interest is always there since almost any scientist wants to discover something and be right. That doesn't mean everyone does bad science, but it's not possible to be unbiased.

I'd say the motivation to name a phenomenon and make a mark in the science history might be much higher and more widespread then to sell a book.

Science cannot depend on scientists being unbiased about their work. It has to depend on verification, reproduction of experiments, meta analysis and so on.

Scientists are likely to be assessed on the basis of their general credibility, not the standing of a single paper.

Maintaining general credibility typically requires not overstating your claims, especially when dealing with sparse data.

Publishing a single paper and then making money on promoting lifestyle changes based on your discovery is not science, and would be (I would say correctly) side-eyed by many scientists. The author’s credibility is now inexorably bound up with a single statement that has been reduced to marketing.

There's an incentive for the work to be right, explainable and having transposable advice.

A common thread I see in discussions about age and about weight gain is about how a lot of it is determined by genetics. If you are trying to sell a diet book, are you going to dig into the genetics part a lot? Probably not![0]

Flavors of this exist in all domains, of course, and it's not that the causal relation is "writing a book on the effect makes the research bad". But when you show up with a problem and the solution in one package, there is a question about whether this is research or whether this is a sales pitch (likely something in between).

[0]: not taking a position on the actual veracity of the genetics back-and-forth.

This is great. Do you have more examples (of self interest-driven neologisms) at hand?

The first one that comes into my mind is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing

Everything by Nassim Taleb.

Master class in marketing and manufacturing desire!

Thanks a lot for the insight. I wish, I had read your comment before reading the article so could have saved some time.

Seems sort of the opposite of appeal to authority: condemning if making a living.

Blue Zones LLC is mentioned at the very beginning of the article.

> In 2004, Dan Buettner, CEO of Blue Zones LLC, was determined to uncover the specific aspects of lifestyle and environment that led to longevity.

You could have just read that

If one does a good deed, but does so with the intention of telling others about the good deed to gain social status, is the deed still good despite the ulterior motive?

Isn't the point of starting a business to make money off a product that is useful to people and makes their lives better, hence people willing to trade their money for that product? If healthy living can be a product, what's wrong with monetizing it?

The Bible seems to think that not a good thing. "But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"- Mathew 6:3.

tl;dr: bias

I think the problem is that there is an obvious incentive for the author to achieve research findings that support their enterprise, and ignore the facts that are contrary. It's an opening for corruption/conflict-of-interest.

That's not to say that it's not possible that they are both correct in their findings and able to make money off it, but it does reduce their credibility.

Who's advice do you take more seriously, the guy with a horse in the race, or the guy without?

The problem is trying to monetize something new and unproven by claiming some kind of significant virtue.

Charging money to provide value under conditions where it's a proven and known means to add value is not controversial. But merely virtue signaling on something you can't prove is a common tactic of con artists.

See: Theranos, for example.

Boy, wait till you hear about capitalism

Blue Zones have been talked about on HN for 13 years

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

pg famously talks "middlebrow" comments on this specific Blue Zones topic 10 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692598 -

"The problem with the middlebrow dismissal is that it's a magnet for upvotes."

Currently the top comments are what pg was worried about (I'd say). This is an old concept. The top comments are not pulling out any big guns to say why it's wrong but are getting upvoted.

Thanks for the links, a nice little read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com