This article has a few red flags, the true hallmarks of pop-science reporting: * Click-baity title * Single data point; no reference to other/related resea

This article has a few red flags, the true hallmarks of pop-science reporting: * Click-baity title * Single data point; no reference to other/related research * Plays on widespread cultural beliefs * Loaded with speculation I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with their hypothesis or analysis, and it is definitely an interesting topic. But I also remember hearing about the researchers who tried to repeat 100 of the most famous social-science experiments, and less than half of them were actually reproducible. And then, in some crazy meta-irony, I stumble upon this article [1] (funny enough, also from WaPo), which blasts the aforementioned study for all of its flaws. Where does that leave us? I don't know, just color me skeptical about any pop-science media coverage. Regardless of how broadly any single experiment is conducted, I consider the entire experiment a single data point. I could add my own speculations about what this particular study means, but frankly I'd rather understand it, mentally digest it, and wait for more data points before trying to draw a line. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/03/errors-riddled-2015-study-showing-replication-crisis-in-psychology-research-scientists-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...