A careful reading of the source article states: > With each track, the participants were given a short biographical text that either emphasised the natural tal

A careful reading of the source article states: > With each track, the participants were given a short biographical text that either emphasised the natural talent of the performer, or the hard work that had helped them to develop their art. You said: > one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart Which is incorrect. It is important to clearly and accurately read the source material to avoid your own bias. We cannot know, based on the article, which statements (the emphasis on the natural talent or the hard work that helped them develop their art) were the primary cause of the findings. You can either assume or you can create a new experiment that tries to distinguish between them. I can't say that I am correct, but to suggest my analysis "doesn't make much sense" is both inaccurate and frankly rude.