3 ms·
This is great reporting. The reporter explicitly pointed out it isn't necessarily a causal effect instead of exploiting the misunderstanding that it might be. T
by imh 11y ago
This is great reporting. The reporter explicitly pointed out it isn't necessarily a causal effect instead of exploiting the misunderstanding that it might be. Then she succinctly explains the findings and a few potential interpretations without evangelizing any of them. She even linked to the original paper! I wish more scientific reporting were like this.
(Note: There's a typo in the link to the original paper. It's missing a period after pnas: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112)
- frostmatthew 11y ago> This is great reporting. The reporter explicitly pointed out it isn't necessarily a causal effect instead of exploiting the misunderstanding that it might be. I agree this is great reporting but your comment suggests there is no causal effect, which is not the case as concluded by the researchers (or as presented in this article). Only the first part of the study doesn't demonstrate causality which is why the author states "Of course, this association does not demonstrate causality" which is why the researchers then "showed the study participants a pie chart depicting simulated economic data in their home state" and that's how they determined there is a causal effect. In the abstract for the study which you link to it even states "To better establish causality..."