Yes, D-K is another one of those "classic" psychology studies that everyone knows about but is actually rubbish and shouldn't be cited for anything. You're not

Yes, D-K is another one of those "classic" psychology studies that everyone knows about but is actually rubbish and shouldn't be cited for anything. You're not the first to notice this, I pointed it out on HN last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31119836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31119836 At some point I should write up a proper blog post on the D-K paper in the hope that it eventually surfaces in search results, because it's past time for this paper to be put to bed. The problems you cite aren't even the full set. The whole thing was (of course) a study on a handful of psych undergrads, their selection method for expert comedians has circular logic in it and it all goes downhill from there.