In my work, I made a discovery that our Psychophysiology creates a huge impact on whether Leaders succeed or fail.

Due to this finding, I have done a LOT of reading of scientific research papers.

In theory, research should be unbiased because the "Truth" should be revealed in science.

However, sadly this isn't the case often.

Unfortunately, there are many biases that occur in scientific research and it can make it difficult to understand.

Over time, there have been many things that I have found to be "common knowledge" in science that really haven't been True at all.

I recently wrote about how there is a lot of bad research and "knowledge" in the field of Intelligence, especially IQ.

For a number of years, we've been told that "science" proved that IQ is "static", and can't change more than "10 points" in a lifetime.

Both false.

Both myths.

Or how so many people talk about how healthy Broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables are for us?

Yet when you look at what seems to be the "healthiest" part of these vegetables, Sulforaphane, you discover that it's actually a Phytochemical (Plant Pesticide) that directly damages our bodies.

How can it be that the "Healthiest" part of something considered "Good" is damaging to humans?

These types of things are only the tip of the iceberg.

There have been some studies I have read that have truly dumbfounded me due to how little "science" they actually contain.

Most recently I read an article that claimed there was a high correlation between Type 2 Diabetes and Red Meat Intake, but there were SO many problems with the "Science".

First, the idea that "Red Meat" does anything with "Diabetes" doesn't make sense.

Diabetes has to do with Blood Sugar, which is frequently impacted by Carbohydrates, especially processed sugar.

But Red Meat doesn't have those elements, they are Protein and Fats.

The deep research around Protein and Fats, especially Keto Diets, shows that these Macronutrients actually help things like Diabetes.

When you look further into this article, it also doesn't attempt to explain ANY other potential causes of the increase in Diabetes.

They only appear to have looked at Red Meat and Nuts/Legumes - which is extremely limited data.

What about other health factors such as whether people exercise or not?

What about if people were drinking soda or not, or how much?

What types of "Red Meat" are we talking about?

There's a HUGE difference between eating steaks every day and being on an Animal-Based Diet which would include things like Liver, which many doctors consider an "Essential" food for people.

Is there any mention of any of these factors in the research?

NONE!

What about how the research was conducted?

It was done using questionnaires (notoriously faulty) every 2 to 4 years.

I don't remember what I ate a week ago let alone 2 years ago!

How can we expect anyone to remember what they ate 2 years ago, let alone 4 years ago!?

Also, did the researchers include any form of data to support what they were saying, or that would allow us to see any other potential or stronger correlations?

Not a single graph in the entire article.

Only VERY specific numbers are given based on data we cannot see.

Do they include a section that talks about ANY potential conflicts of interest?

Nope! (that actually really worries me the most!)

Looking at this "study", to me it doesn't even look like real research.

It looks more like someone said, "Hey, we want to prove idea X, how can we take this data set to tell that story?"

"Well, if we look only at these hyper-specific things, we could say that."

"Great, put it on paper and run with it!"

Truly, the extreme levels of information missing dumbfounds me!

To draw such a specific conclusion with so many variables completely unaccounted for I think is scientifically irresponsible.

Yet, things like this occur all the time.

There is a lot of good science and research out there, but sadly there are also extreme levels of irresponsible science like this as well.

In fact, there was a paper from 2022 that found that 95% of the committee members for the newest USDA Dietary Guidelines had conflicts of interest with the food and pharmaceutical industries!

These are the people who make health claims for an entire country!

This is why it is SO important to do your own research, and actually read into what the "claims" are showing.

A few things to pay attention to when looking at research:

Conflicts Of Interest (What Is Stated, Or Is It Stated AT ALL)
Correlative Research (Does Not Mean "Causation") Or Randomized Controlled Trials (Potentially Means "Causation")
Are Other Potential Reasons Or Factors Stated? (Or Are They Conveniently "Left Out"?)
How Many Participants Were In The Study? (Many "Claims" Are Made With "Minimal" And Highly Biased Datasets Of Participants)
Were Any Participants Cut? (Why, And What Percentage Of The Total Do They Make?)
How Long Was The Study? (Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Longer Tend To Be More Relevant)
Does The "Certainty" Claimed Match The Type Of Research (If Researchers Are "Certain" Based On "Correlative" Research, Be Wary)
How Does Research Compare To Meta-Analyses? (Meta-Analyses Look At MANY Studies, Less Tendency For Bias)
Do The Meta-Analyses Look At Correlative Research Or Randomized Controlled Trials? (The Latter Is MUCH More Significant)
Does The Body Text Match The Headlines? (Many Researchers With Conflicts Of Interest Try To "Hide" The Data In The Body Text And Have Misleading Headlines)

This isn't an extensive list of what to pay attention to, but it gives you a great start for understanding.

The other sad reality of this is that there are a lot of good Doctors who haven't actually read the research themselves.

It isn't because they are bad people, I think the vast majority of Doctors are extremely well-intentioned people who truly live to serve others.

However, the challenge for many Doctors is that they are simply SO busy.

They legitimately just haven't seen the research they rely on so deeply because they don't have the time to dig deeply.

Most work between 40 and 60 hours a week (just with patients), and a quarter are working 61 to 80 hours a week.

Where is the time for them to look deeply at the research on schedules like that?

They don't, especially if they want to have any recovery, a family life, or hobbies.

There is also a huge gap between the Practitioners and the Researchers, and sadly many of the Researchers have known conflicts of interest.

Honestly, I am not even certain we can blame most of the Researchers either!

Many of them simply have a job they are trying to keep, as "Unbiased" Research is sadly underfunded.

These factors make it so important to learn to read scientific literature.

Some scientific terms can be difficult to understand at first, but often a quick Google search can give you the jist of what you're looking at.

Once you get the basics of how scientific research works, it actually isn't that difficult to understand them.

You can fairly quickly identify whether research is good or whether you should be wary of it (meaning you should dig deeper).

All Scientific Research is just a tool, and how the tool is wielded will determine if it is useful or if it will cause issues.

Using a hammer on a nail is great, but using a hammer to fix a window could be disastrous.

This is how you should look at the Research.

What type of tool are the Researchers using, and are they using the tool the right way?

It can bring a lot of clarity when you start to look at Research like this, and it can help you see past the lies and myths that are abundant in the Scientific world.

Don't Believe Everything You Hear In "Science"

The Reality Of Scientific Studies And Things To Pay Attention To

The all-in-one writing platform.

Write, publish everywhere, see what works, and become a better writer - all in one place.