In all modesty, here is Tyler Cowen’s recent post about self-experimentation, especially mine. I don’t know enough about philosophy to comment on the philosophical stuff but I agree with the rest of it — especially the reference to Robin Hanson, who argues that our biases badly distort our reasoning. Sure, self-experimentation doesn’t fit the usual research model. It doesn’t need grants or graduate students. It doesn’t generate publications quickly. But what if you are a scientist and you sleep badly, or you’re depressed, or you want to lose weight? Why not self-experiment to try to find a solution? Your career won’t suffer; you can do it in your spare time. Your life might benefit. Why this has not happened is the puzzle.
Tyler mentions status-quo bias. I would add two more. They are hedonic biases rather than cognitive ones: biases in what we enjoy. They are restricted to men; women are quite different:
Big things are more enjoyable than small things. This is rationalized into a belief that big things are more important, more worthy of study and support, than small things. I live on a steep street. One day a really big truck got stuck. When I came upon it, there were fifteen-odd people on the street just standing there, looking at it. Not a female among them. Treating big things better than small things I call bigism. Tyler’s view that a tiny restaurant had something to teach him is the opposite of bigism.
Admission of weakness is unpleasant. It is undignified. It is un-stoic. It is too personal. Taken to extremes, it is humiliating. I self-experimented on sleep and weight because I slept poorly and weighed too much. Telling others what I had done was an admission of weakness. Unavoidable, of course, but I too have this bias. Whenever anyone says I self-experimented with mood because I was depressed I quickly correct them.