Why you should be a skeptic of the self-help industry

The self-help industry is a multi-billion dollar behemoth, yet much of it is built on shaky foundations, promising quick fixes and transformations with little scientific backing. This is the first installment in a three-part series dissecting the common flaws and pitfalls of the self-help world. In this article, we'll focus on the lack of rigorous evidence, the reliance on anecdotal proof, and the often-misleading marketing tactics used to promote unproven methods.

Today’s Idea

Consider a simple physics experiment: dropping a ball. Galileo Galilei, centuries ago, challenged the Aristotelian belief that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. He (allegedly) dropped balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa and observed that they hit the ground at approximately the same time. This simple observation, replicable by anyone with the right tools, demonstrated a fundamental principle of physics: in the absence of significant air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate due to gravity. You can repeat this experiment right now and verify the principle for yourself.

Now, consider another scenario relating to Scurvy, a debilitating disease caused by vitamin C deficiency. Centuries ago, this was a terrifying and often fatal illness, especially for sailors on long voyages. Replicating the cause and treatment of scurvy is ethically problematic and takes a long time. Direct, easy replication like the falling ball experiment isn't feasible. In the 18th century, Scottish physician James Lind addressed this challenge through one of the history’s first controlled clinical trials. He divided sailors with scurvy into groups, giving each group a different treatment. The results were clear: the sailors who received citrus fruits recovered dramatically. While not as immediately and easily replicable as dropping a ball, Lind's experiment provided a different kind of evidence – evidence gathered through careful, controlled observation when direct manipulation is difficult or unethical.

The falling ball experiment and Lind's scurvy trial represent two different, but crucial, aspects of the scientific method. The falling ball exemplifies direct reproducibility: the ability for anyone, anywhere, to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results. This is a cornerstone of scientific knowledge. It builds confidence in the underlying principle.

Lind's experiment, on the other hand, demonstrates the importance of controlled observation when direct, easy reproducibility isn't possible. In fields like medicine, directly inducing illness to test a cure is unethical. Instead, we rely on carefully designed studies, like randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to isolate the effects of a treatment and minimize bias.

See where I am getting at?

Imagine you're trying to figure out if a new medicine really works. You wouldn't just ask one person if it helped them, would you? You'd want more solid proof. This "hierarchy of evidence" is like a ranking system for how trustworthy different types of medical proof are.

In medicine and pharmacology, a rigorous hierarchy of evidence exists. At the top are systematic reviews and meta-analyses of multiple RCTs, and finally, at the bottom, expert opinion and anecdotal evidence. This hierarchy reflects the relative strength of evidence in determining cause and effect.

The self-help industry, however, often inverts this hierarchy. Anecdotes and testimonials (the weakest form of evidence) are frequently presented as compelling proof, while RCTs are rarely used or nonexistent. Many self-help techniques lack even the basic level of controlled observation that Lind employed centuries ago. There's no systematic attempt to rule out alternative explanations or biases. The core problem is a lack of a reliable mechanism, analogous to either the easily replicable physics experiment or the carefully controlled clinical trial, to truly know if a method works beyond subjective reporting.

Today’s Action

The next time you encounter a self-help claim, adopt a "scientific mindset." Ask yourself this what is the specific claim being made and what is the evidence supports this claim?

You will often realize that the claim is simply “trust me, bro”.