Sources are a shallow dive of google and reading a few abstracts, this is intended as trailheads for people, not firm recommendations. If I wanted them to be reccs I would want to estimate effect sizes and estimates of the quality of the related research.
The subtext here seems to be that such references are required. I disagree that it should be.
It is frequently helpful but also often a pain to dig up, so there are tradeoffs at play. For this post, I think it was fine to omit references. I don’t think the references would add much value for most readers and I suspect Romeo wouldn’t have found it worthwhile to post if he had to dig up all of the references before being able to post.
The subtext is that I’d like to have them if the author has them available. It sounded like it’s applied/used by the author. Also, it’s a frontpage post and the LW standard on scholarship is typically higher than this.
I’m fine with romeostevensit’s reply that it’s from a shallow google dive, but would have preferred this to be a QuickTake or at least an indication that it’s shallow.
Please provide more details on sources or how you measured the results.
Sources are a shallow dive of google and reading a few abstracts, this is intended as trailheads for people, not firm recommendations. If I wanted them to be reccs I would want to estimate effect sizes and estimates of the quality of the related research.
The subtext here seems to be that such references are required. I disagree that it should be.
It is frequently helpful but also often a pain to dig up, so there are tradeoffs at play. For this post, I think it was fine to omit references. I don’t think the references would add much value for most readers and I suspect Romeo wouldn’t have found it worthwhile to post if he had to dig up all of the references before being able to post.
The subtext is that I’d like to have them if the author has them available. It sounded like it’s applied/used by the author. Also, it’s a frontpage post and the LW standard on scholarship is typically higher than this.
I’m fine with romeostevensit’s reply that it’s from a shallow google dive, but would have preferred this to be a QuickTake or at least an indication that it’s shallow.
Hmm, good point this should probably have an epistemic status.