|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnhess
3493 days ago
|
|
|
Why is this flagged? Yes, there are real criticisms, but this is published, reviewed research. There is a real intellectual contribution. I'd much rather see a discussion of flaws (there's already a healthy discussion here) than burying a study that speaks to important issues. |
|
|
- Incredibly clickbait title that is in no way backed up by substantive fact
- It is old (2014) and not tagged as such
- The intellectual contribution is nil. Even the body that put out the dataset used in the study said NOT to use its dataset in this way as it is misleading
What good is a study that "speaks" to important issues when the samples it has are flawed, the methodology is faulty, and the conclusions are wrong? Is this what living in post-truth is like, where as long as something is 'related' or 'speaking' to issues it is counted as genuine material for discourse?