[gruez]

> this article is the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move along".

Is that bad? Given the replication crisis, it seems pretty reasonable to be skeptical of new studies, rather than taking every attention-grabbing headline at face value.

[culi]

Sure, but besides the 5 studies the paper reviews, there's quite a few other papers that have covered this topic. And despite difficulties in acquiring high quality data for these types of analyses, none of those studies have found evidence against the claim

This isn't like psychology (which is at the heart of the replication crisis) where studies are really expensive (human subjects have a lot of regulation around them) and are usually only done once. This is something that has been replicated, at varying degrees of quality, quite a few times