[omginternets]

Completely agree with you that the study is trash, however ...

>but an unimportant journal in psychology.

This is untrue. It's comically untrue.

I was doing my PhD in cogsci when this came out and everybody was surprised that PNAS would publish such a bad study, given that we were more used to seeing things like this: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/5/1672.full.pdf and this https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/2/619.full.pdf.

PNAS has an _excellent_ reputation in psychology, especially in the psychophysics and EEG/MEG crowd.

[conistonwater]

PNAS does this sort of thing often enough, it doesn't really deserve its positive reputation (if any): https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=pnas

[disgruntledphd2]

Adam Kramer has a PhD in psychology, for what it's worth.

[datashow]

Thanks. Good to know.

[datashow]

cognitive science is a unique field, it is somewhat related to psychology, but definitely not a subfield of psychology.