Mate, I don't know; I'm just going with all the research and linguistic warnings I've read on the word. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3500 https://l

Mate, I don't know; I'm just going with all the research and linguistic warnings I've read on the word. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3500 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3500 https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/deceptively/ https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/deceptively/ https://www.academia.edu/37488247/The_Deceptively_Simple_Problem_of_Contronymy https://www.academia.edu/37488247/The_Deceptively_Simple_Pro... Shoot, even oxford gives exactly opposite definitions of the word. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/deceptively https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... --- I mean, even when I saw the title of the thread, I had an obligation to click (clickbait I guess?) because I could have interpreted the title as either a warning about p-hacking or an attestation in favor of the practice. In fact, on first glance, I read the title as "P-hacked hypotheses appear less robust than they actually are."