[comex]

Huh. I'm skeptical about that article's dichotomy of "deceptively" meaning either "in appearance but not in reality" or "in reality but not in appearance". I think the most common usage of "deceptively X" is, more broadly, "X in a way that deceives you". That includes "X in reality but not in appearance", but it also includes "X in reality and in appearance, but deceiving you about something else".

For example, they used this quote as an example of "in appearance but not in reality":

> It’s no mystery why images of shocking, unremitting violence spring to mind when one hears the deceptively simple term, “D-Day.” [Life]

But the term "D-Day" is simple. It's deceptive because it might wrongly lead you to think the event it refers to is also simple.

Similarly, if something is "deceptively simple-looking", it really is simple-looking; it's just not simple.

[eganist]

Mate, I don't know; I'm just going with all the research and linguistic warnings I've read on the word.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3500

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/deceptively/

https://www.academia.edu/37488247/The_Deceptively_Simple_Pro...

Shoot, even oxford gives exactly opposite definitions of the word.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

---

I mean, even when I saw the title of the thread, I had an obligation to click (clickbait I guess?) because I could have interpreted the title as either a warning about p-hacking or an attestation in favor of the practice. In fact, on first glance, I read the title as "P-hacked hypotheses appear less robust than they actually are."