This is almost a tautology. Unlikely/unexpected findings are more noteworthy, so they're more likely to be both cited and false, perhaps based on small sample s

This is almost a tautology. Unlikely/unexpected findings are more noteworthy, so they're more likely to be both cited and false, perhaps based on small sample sizes or p-hacking. People love this stuff. Malcolm Gladwell's made a career on it: half of the stuff he writes about is disproven before he publishes. It's very interesting that facial microexpressions analysis can predict relationship outcome with 90% certainty. Except it's just an overfit model, it can't, and he's no longer my favorite author. [0] Similarly, Thomas Erikson's "Surrounded by Idiots" also lacks validation. [1] Both authors have been making top 10 lists for years, and Audible's top selling list just reminded me of them. Similarly, shocking publications in Nature or Science are to be viewed with skepticism. I don't know what I can read anymore. It's the same with politics. The truth is morally ambiguous, time consuming, complicated, and doesn't sell. I feel powerless against market forces. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman#Critiques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman#Critiques [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Z7JiCRI7s4J:https://soccermatics.medium.com/how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad&hl=en&gl=ca&strip=1&vwsrc=0 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Z7JiC...