As a layman, it felt like his article was addressed at professional psychologists, not laymen like myself (or, presumably, yourself). It read like it was assum

As a layman, it felt like his article was addressed at professional psychologists, not laymen like myself (or, presumably, yourself). It read like it was assumed that you'd realize how massively overblown such a result should be interpreted. It would be like if you wrote a couple tests and your tooling said you had 100% code coverage, you be like "Wait, that just can't be right. I was just writing tests for one function..." Or imagine you go to download a 100GB file from some server and the download completes in 5 seconds, you'd be like "Wait, that.... just can't be right. I don't have a SSD, allocating the disk space alone should take longer than that..." Of course, that just my assumption, and my impression.