[omginternets]

The subject is interesting, but there's barely any effect. Look at the d scores!

>a massive (N=689,00!)

Your critique reads like someone whose never done any research or serious statistical work. Big N's don't automatically mean the results are robust.

I'm sorry, this isn't the groundbreaking paper you want it to be.

[kick]

Condescending remark aside, it's not important because of the effect or lack thereof; it's important because of how it was done.

[omginternets]

Please consider that this stuff is very nuanced, and that while you clearly care about these issues a lot (as do I!), your analysis betrays a lack of understanding.

Any way you want to cut it, these results are not to be trusted. You cannot even be sure the conclusions are true. The effect sizes are within measurement error.

[anigbrowl]

You can gmail me if you want a more receptive ear for your thoughts on this paper and related subject matter.