The problem is deeper than people just struggling with frequentist statistics. It's difficult IMHO to actually reason properly about frequentist results without

The problem is deeper than people just struggling with frequentist statistics. It's difficult IMHO to actually reason properly about frequentist results without also having a grounding in Bayesian statistics. For example, in the Gigerenzer et al. paper cited above, to properly understand why statement #6 is false, a person has to understand that they've confused p(D|H0) with 1 – p(D). That's why it's not surprising IMHO that cookbook approaches to frequentist statistics without a nontrivial Bayesian component, as are often found in social science-focused stats courses, inevitably end up with limited or skewed comprehension.