3 ms·
That’s the literal definition of credibility firstly, and secondly if 120 people and covid were properly controlled for, neither of these facts invalidates the
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
That’s the literal definition of credibility firstly, and secondly if 120 people and covid were properly controlled for, neither of these facts invalidates the study. You can find statistically valid conclusions from 120 people, for sure.
Just read the damn paper, rather than presume it’s credible or dismiss it because they couldn’t run it on 100,000 people over the course of 30 years.
- whatyesaid 3y agoYou're telling me to read a paper you haven't read yourself? COVID was not controlled for. A three month study says nothing about mental health which is intrinsically long-term: this decides to observe short-term effects. I am not even satisfied with the very definition of 'negative thoughts' which at least should fall under multiple categories and studied differently.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoCool; briefly, can you describe your credentials? Why should anyone care what you think about this study?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whatyesaid 3y agoIf you don't care what I state about a particular study within the sphere of the replication crisis, I suggest you to fast forward instead of appealing to authority. Notice that I never asserted a position on either side of this "thought suppression" practice, I have no extrinsic incentives.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYou didn't assert a position because you have no expertise from which your evaluation would mean anything. Nobody cares if a random person off the street thinks a bridge looks sturdy.
- asdgiononoi 3y agoAs a matter of fact, people do care if a random person off the street thinks a bridge looks sturdy. I reported a wooden bridge with a beam rotted such that large nails pointed up into the roadway. The police cordoned it off within an hour, no engineers required.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoIt’s sad to me you don’t think an engineer was involved in your story.