3 ms·
Indeed, it's quite intriguing to observe the apparent trend of unofficial institutions showing a higher rate of partial success. It raises questions about the f
by victorantos 3y ago
Indeed, it's quite intriguing to observe the apparent trend of unofficial institutions showing a higher rate of partial success. It raises questions about the factors influencing these outcomes. While it's important not to jump to conclusions about the legitimacy or capability of accredited labs versus unofficial ones, your skepticism is understandable.
Accredited institutions often have established protocols, rigorous peer review processes, and accountability mechanisms that contribute to their credibility. However, it's worth considering that unofficial institutions might have some advantages too, such as more freedom to explore unconventional approaches and potentially quicker adaptation to emerging trends.
- kaba0 3y agoI believe it is just self-selecting. An unofficial institution that fails to display anything interesting likely won’t be added to the list.
- regularfry 3y agoPossibly also a base-rate effect going on. There are presumably far more unaccredited groups having a go than official institutions, so even with a worse chance of success they could be over-represented.
- archon1410 3y agoReads like a substance-less ChatGPT comment. Probably is one.