I mean I'm not gonna pretend I read that whole paper (and I'd be surprised if any commenter did), a thousand papers like this get posted on HN every year and co

I mean I'm not gonna pretend I read that whole paper (and I'd be surprised if any commenter did), a thousand papers like this get posted on HN every year and completely forgotten (by HN and academia). Another thing I'm not sure about -- I think some schools intentionally group troublemakers/slower-students into similar classes either officially or unofficially. I'm not gonna read the whole thing and see if they're accounting for that. Another weird thing is that "behavioral disorder" isn't contagious if there's 1 other person who has it, but IS with 99.9% confidence if more than 1 other has it. The whole chart of P-values seems a bit odd, tbh. I don't mean to entirely discredit this paper, but what I've learned is that a lot of academics LOVE datasets that they download and analyze without ever meeting a single person in that dataset (it's the quickest way to get papers out). This CAN be useful, but it can also be garbage-in garbage-out. Over my career I've learned that data, like code, should be presumed broken until proven otherwise.