It's not uncommon for researchers to dispute follow-up studies that fail to reproduce their results. Their reputations are at stake, if it points to methodologi

It's not uncommon for researchers to dispute follow-up studies that fail to reproduce their results. Their reputations are at stake, if it points to methodological errors (which seems to be the case here). The problem here is Gladwell didn't even hint that there is significant doubt about the methodology of study he cited. Note his dismissive term for it: a "intramural argument". Chabris just "doesn't like" the study, as if it's a shirt in a color that doesn't suit him. These are not equivalent things. It's not just a difference of opinion or who tells a better story or who has more letters after their name. What matters is the science behind it, and Gladwell is intentionally perverting it in the service of a better story. That's a huge disservice to the public when it comes to popularizing science.