[MikkoFinell]

So you were able to think of a couple confounding factors off the top of your head, but you dismiss the idea that the researchers had considered those factors and controlled for it? Despite the fact that their full time job it is to think about things like that, and their careers are on the line if they embarrass themselves by disregarding something as obvious and trivial like that? Did you even read the original paper?

[vanderZwan]

This very article is about how the original paper did not control enough for confounding factors:

> Watts and his colleagues were skeptical of that finding. The original results were based on studies that included fewer than 90 children—all enrolled in a preschool on Stanford’s campus. In restaging the experiment, Watts and his colleagues thus adjusted the experimental design in important ways: The researchers used a sample that was much larger—more than 900 children—and also more representative of the general population in terms of race, ethnicity, and parents’ education. The researchers also, when analyzing their test’s results, controlled for certain factors—such as the income of a child’s household—that might explain children’s ability to delay gratification and their long-term success.

[MikkoFinell]

The quote you copy-pasted from the article has nothing to do with my comment.

[vanderZwan]

You complain to GP for not considering that the people who published the original Marshmallow test paper had controlled for confounding factors. In the opening paragraph, other researchers complain about just that.

In other words: a more sensible reading of GP's comment would be as a reaction to said paragraph.

[MikkoFinell]

I asked why OP is dismissing the possibility that the authors considered the specific factors OP mentioned.

The quote you posted did not address that question. That is why it is not related to my comment, like I already said.

[Rexxar]

What you say is essentially an appeal to authority. The questions of wombat92 are legitimate and it is the job of the journalist to answer them in the article. "They are professional, they know their job" is not a valid scientific argument.

[MikkoFinell]

What gave you the idea that I was making a scientific argument?

[xzttt]

I don't understand this researcher worship. How many papers from 1800-1900 are still valuable? How many from 1900-2000.

Fact is that academia is grossly overstaffed and under publication pressure. Most papers aren't worth much, especially in the social sciences.

Even in CS there are few seminal papers, and I mean the level of Tukey, Dana Scott, Pollard...

[MikkoFinell]

LOL, what are you talking about? I asked why OP had such a dismissive attitude towards the original paper, and that's "researcher worship"? Gotta be one of the most toxic responses I've gotten so far on HN.