> In a quick skim, I couldn't actually find the complaint. I agree (I think) with what you're getting at, but then I reread TFA and I've come to see it from th

> In a quick skim, I couldn't actually find the complaint. I agree (I think) with what you're getting at, but then I reread TFA and I've come to see it from the author's point of view. That is, reading between the lines of what you've written, I think you're saying that TFA doesn't actually talk in specifics about (a) what Ellen Langer's research purports to say, and (b) what the particular objections to the conclusions of her research actually are. And I totally agree that I think talking in specifics, giving real examples (and beyond just links to dense, 18-page studies and research where the point is buried somewhere within), etc. makes it much easier for the reader to actually figure out why I should care about this in the first place. But on the other hand, I think the author of TFA is purposefully trying to refrain from "getting into the weeds" as he puts it because his main point is really along the lines of "extraordinary results should require extraordinary evidence". That is, he gives quotes from Steven Levitt about how Langer's research is completely contrary to what he would expect, but then Levitt barely even challenges how she got such unusual results to begin with. I.e. his point is rather than give an unfiltered bullhorn to a researcher with questionable (or at least controversial) results, why aren't you pushing back by at least asking how she would respond to her critics? So the article is really about "How and why you should be skeptical of unexpected results", and much less so about any singular instance of unexpected results. That said, again I agree that going into more detail of a singular instance would have helped the author's argument immensely.