You are not in fact responding to any argument I've made. My point is that IRBs have an incentive structure that encourages excessive risk aversion. My citatio

You are not in fact responding to any argument I've made. My point is that IRBs have an incentive structure that encourages excessive risk aversion. My citation is an instance of this phenomenon in action. It has nothing to do with the particulars of psychology. You have not attempted to address this incentive alignment argument in any way. Blocking an attempt to replicate an alcohol study due to weak evidence for a very small negative effect is another example, albeit hypothetical, of this same excessive risk aversion. You have not made a similarly substantial argument. Instead, you've just asserted that institutional review is embedded in biomedical research. It is, but I think it shouldn't be. > Also, SlateStarCodex is bad. It's amazing that immediately after a paragraph in which you claim to be making a substantive argument, you make a bald and unsupported assertion that an influential and widely-read blog, one that Pinker has called "wonderful", is in fact "bad". This is not the kind of intellectual conversation that HN was meant to host.