FWIW I also use the drinking water upside down method with 100% success rate, for decades. And I used to get the hiccups with really annoying frequency as a kid or teenager, like a couple of times a month at least, which would last for up to an hour without doing that. Nothing else I ever tried worked. That's not going to pass your scientific requirements but it's good enough for me.
Always sucks to be in a conversation with someone who says "studies say..." before making claims which are not only obscene misreadings of the studies, but are in fact claims so egregiously outside the realm of science that no study could ever back them up in the first place.
When I eventually became more familiar with the findings of psychometrics and behavioral genetics, the second shock after human biodiversity-related realizations was realizing how truly bad most social science research is. Once you know to look for it, it is often trivial to see that a correlation attributed to socioeconomic status could actually be driven by intelligence, or that controlling for SES or education often leaves the problem of residual confounding due to intelligence. However, there are also presumably a great many important traits that are more poorly understood and harder to measure than intelligence, but nevertheless have profound influences on life outcomes.
It is quite a big shift as a scientifically-minded person to suddenly realize you cannot trust the scientific consensus of fields like psychology, economics, sociology, criminology, anthropology, pedagogy, even certain parts of medicine (for chronic health outcomes or for interventions that are not amenable to randomized controlled trials). Each claim must be regarded with suspicion until you can see what actual evidence underlies it. Often, that evidence is woefully bad.
FWIW I also use the drinking water upside down method with 100% success rate, for decades. And I used to get the hiccups with really annoying frequency as a kid or teenager, like a couple of times a month at least, which would last for up to an hour without doing that. Nothing else I ever tried worked. That's not going to pass your scientific requirements but it's good enough for me.
Always sucks to be in a conversation with someone who says "studies say..." before making claims which are not only obscene misreadings of the studies, but are in fact claims so egregiously outside the realm of science that no study could ever back them up in the first place.
what's wrong with mendelian randomization? i know non-linear mendelian randomization is ass but what's wrong with mr?
When I eventually became more familiar with the findings of psychometrics and behavioral genetics, the second shock after human biodiversity-related realizations was realizing how truly bad most social science research is. Once you know to look for it, it is often trivial to see that a correlation attributed to socioeconomic status could actually be driven by intelligence, or that controlling for SES or education often leaves the problem of residual confounding due to intelligence. However, there are also presumably a great many important traits that are more poorly understood and harder to measure than intelligence, but nevertheless have profound influences on life outcomes.
It is quite a big shift as a scientifically-minded person to suddenly realize you cannot trust the scientific consensus of fields like psychology, economics, sociology, criminology, anthropology, pedagogy, even certain parts of medicine (for chronic health outcomes or for interventions that are not amenable to randomized controlled trials). Each claim must be regarded with suspicion until you can see what actual evidence underlies it. Often, that evidence is woefully bad.