If you think that your new behavioral experiment is really novel, chances are you just don't read enough stuff from the 1950-1970s era. They did it all back then and usually better. #ScoopingAintReal
The thing is, back then they didn't have laptops that could deliver stimuli, record responses, and measure physiology all in one go. It was all manual and incredibly labour intensive. Scientists spent *years* designing, running, and analyzing a single experiment.
Better still, they didn't have fancy brain scanners or neuropixels churning out data they didn't understand. Data was expensively, so good hypotheses were invaluable. So they thought and worked incredibly hard on operationalizing good behavioral experiments.
Seriously, go read almost any paper particularly from the 60s and 70s. These scientists did better work with a single IV than most of us do with 20. Just imagine if you had to deliver stimuli on a physical apparatus and painstakingly record responses from polygraph paper...
This isn't meant to be a Luddite thread; scanners and laptops are great. But novelty is grossly overrated - ground breaking science comes from painstakingly slow, thoughtful, deliberate work.
Of course... That kind of work isn't very fundable so... /Thread
