This study is extremely flawed, like many (if not most) sociological studies. > Participants were randomly assigned to read a short descrip- tion of just one o

This study is extremely flawed, like many (if not most) sociological studies. > Participants were randomly assigned to read a short descrip- tion of just one of these tests and were presented with one sample item. Participants then predicted which of two groups of people was more accurate in an experiment: people in a control condition who simply completed the test without further instruction, or people in a perspective taking condition who were asked to com- plete the test while “trying to adopt the perspective of the other person, putting yourself into the other person’s shoes as if you were that person.” Participants predicted the outcome of the ex- periment by choosing one of three options: “Condition 1 (Control) did significantly better,” “Condition 2 (Perspective Taking) did significantly better,” or “No significant difference between the two conditions in performance on the test.” http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/Eyal_Steffel_Epley_2018_Perspective_Mistaking.pdf http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/Eyal_Steffel_... There conclusions are based on a test that is dependent as much on the reading comprehension and decision making-abilities of the participants as their ability to empathize and understand. >Despite a large scientific literature on the consequences of perspective taking in social interaction, whether perspective taking actually increases accurate insight into the mind of another person is unclear. I would love to sit down at a poker table with these researchers to assist with their clarity on this subject. Like most sociological "studies", these people (who I will not call scientists) are making broad assumptions based on observations of a small group of people. Their observations may be an interesting novelty, but this is not science.