3 ms·
For me this is quite interesting. Because some one has said that it has debunked a study doesn´t means that he has done it. There is still the possibility that
by kartan 11y ago
For me this is quite interesting. Because some one has said that it has debunked a study doesn´t means that he has done it. There is still the possibility that the new study is the incorrect one.
That a team claims that there is a problem it is a good sign that this needs more studies. But it will be jumping to conclusions telling people that the original study has been debunked.
- dalke 11y agoThere can always be more studies, and there can always be the possibility of error. However, consider if the two studies were reversed in time, so the first study specified what its endpoints were, then did the study, and concluded there was no impact. Then the second study came along, and during data analysis an interesting correlation appeared which showed there was a impact. Assuming that both were done by equally competent researchers, which conclusions would you trust more, and why? Do your conclusions change if you swap the time order? Personally, I would trust the study with the well-defined endpoints over the other one, but I also feel within myself the desire to trust the first one - even though the order shouldn't change things.
- JamesBarney 11y agoIf the studies were reversed I think my opinion would be the same. We don't know that much about ego depletion. If it exists or what's driving it. I think it means ego depletion is much more fragile than we thought or is caused by some other phenomenon. I don't think this study means the thing we called ego depletion doesn't exist and is an artifact of publication bias and chance. It seems to me like there were just too many studies replicating it for that to be true.