These seem like all good questions, but an op-ed in the NY Times isn't the place to address them. There just isn't room to specify all of the tested variables a

These seem like all good questions, but an op-ed in the NY Times isn't the place to address them. There just isn't room to specify all of the tested variables and their controls and how the results support the conclusions. Of course the NY Times should be linking to the original research reports. Still, I don't know how this op-ed could lead someone to think the research was sloppy. For me to say that I'd have to, after I read the original reports, present alternative designs that eliminated confounding variables but that didn't introduce additional ones. Here are the papers: 1. http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~fei/XuGarcia-PNAS.pdf http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~fei/XuGarcia-PNAS.pdf 2. http://web.mit.edu/eccl/papers/bonawitzandschulzseriousfun.pdf http://web.mit.edu/eccl/papers/bonawitzandschulzseriousfun.p... 3. http://www.alisongopnik.com/Papers/Kushnir%20DevPsych.pdf http://www.alisongopnik.com/Papers/Kushnir%20DevPsych.pdf I'm sure the researchers would be pleased to answer any questions.