There are other explanations too, and every study flaw, if it exists, doesn't implicate the "replication crisis". > the results of the first study don’t match

There are other explanations too, and every study flaw, if it exists, doesn't implicate the "replication crisis". > the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all. 30 years ago you had some anecdotal impressions. 30 years ago the researchers had a hypothesis, focused on this exact question, designed an experiment, and collected evidence. (And many since have found it valid.) 30 years later, we have a detailed written report of their experience, and your 30-year old memory as posted on HN. It's just too easy to say, 'that's not my experience' without evidence. Everything is 'debunked' on that basis. Now we have 30 year old memories too.