3 ms·

I was going to write in disagreement with your point #3, but then I went back and re-read the Atlantic article. In that context, I can see why you would write t

I was going to write in disagreement with your point #3, but then I went back and re-read the Atlantic article. In that context, I can see why you would write that. However, I think it needs this context, so to others who were going to knee-jerk react to point #3, re-read the article first. The study is not impressive. Most studies aren't, and exploratory, early-stage studies rarely can be. It's OK that early studies of a phenomenon are not impressive, but the tests do seem to be extremely narrow. The claims should be equally reserved and narrow. I certainly wouldn't start invoking morality, judgment, or other abstractions of the human psyche (as did the author of this article) from such a small and contrived set of experiments.

lutusp 14y ago
> The study is not impressive. Most studies aren't, and exploratory, early-stage studies rarely can be. Yes, but a longitudinal examination of psychology publications shows that, compared to mainstream science, psychology studies are rarely anything but "early-stage studies". Almost none of them is ever successfully replicated, nor is an effort made to replicate them, compared to other fields. > I certainly wouldn't start invoking morality, judgment, or other abstractions of the human psyche (as did the author of this article) from such a small and contrived set of experiments. I of course agree, but then it's a psychology study, where such hand-waving claims are commonplace.