I forgot who said it but every time I hear evidence-based, I mentally prepare myself for a lie.

I was super surprised when my mom, who believes anything anyone tells her, said that her new doctor works with an evidenced based approach. After some probing I realized what they mean with that now is "we'll use anything we think might work, unlike those dogmatic academics who restrict themselves", which is a funny reversal of the original meaning.

There is always one scientific study with a result that confirms my own personal biases. :)

Seeing as they have not linked to any evidence anywhere you'll have to take his word for it!

Some studies/analyses are surely laundered opinions. I have a habit these days of checking if the authors have a product to sell or funding to raise. If so, pinch of salt.

A few things odd about this post:

1. The poster of this post is also the author of this post. No clarification from the author yet about why the HN title does not match the actual title.

2. Current title on HN: An evidence-based guide to expanding your comfort zone. Actual title on the blog post: When You Plateau, So Does Your Company.

3. There is no actual evidence provided in the blog post. The current title is misleading.

Anyway I have flagged this post because I don't think self-promotional and misleading posts like this should be on the front page of HN.

There's no evidence provided.

What do these people think evidence-based means?

The article doesn’t claim it’s evidence-based - that’s just the HN headline. The latter appears to be basing that claim on the use of ACT, which is considered an empirically supported therapy.

The author of the article is also the person who wrote the HN headline.

That seems very dishonest then, given the glaring difference between what the headline and article claim.

Medicine is evidence-based but they won't hand you a bunch of studies before surgery.

Providing evidence helps but isn't a necessity to call something evidence-based.

> Medicine is evidence-based but they won't hand you a bunch of studies before surgery.

Well, they surely should be able to if you ask for it. And ideally, that information should be easily available to you anyway.

Was the article changed? That word is nowhere on the page now.

I've worked with a lot of the same local businesses for nearly 20 years and it's definitely true that the business rises to the level where the owner isn't willing to let go any more, if that makes sense. You have to surround yourself with people you respect and are happy letting do their thing. People are everything. Get rid of people who don't fit.

The problem with the advice: 'expand your comfort zone' is that while it is useful advice for most people, I think it is overdone in certain subcultures. (mostly intelligent people in competitive business fields). Lots of people already live an uncomfortable, unhealthy life because of chasing money and success. I think being out of your comfort zone too much is an important contributor to burnout and sometimes even counterproductive as it might prevent you from becoming really good in the thing that you love. It is obvious that you need to mix the 2 behaviours: being in the flow (do what you love), and being out of comfort zone: The question is which audience needs encouragement for which? I am not sure that the HN audience needs much encouragement for expanding their comfort zone.

> it is overdone in certain subcultures. (mostly intelligent people in competitive business fields).

Competitive people leaving their comfort zone is likely to involve solitude and charity in humbling settings. I like extreme sports and daring dining. They're challenging. But I wouldn't consider them outside my comfort zone.

ACT sometimes seems like the only therapeutic method that non-psychologists are interested in. You miss a lot that way. Like IPT or EMDR.

Reading "A founder's guide to expanding your confort zone" instantly set me in my disconfort zone