A nit: I and probably many LWers are allergic to phrases like “Psychological research suggests” that aren’t followed by a citation.
It depends on how controversial the research reference is. My tolerance for inappropriate ‘citation needed’ claims is far, far lower than than my tolerance for claims that are made as assertions rather than links. The latter are simply a different form of communication, and one that everyone—speaker and listener alike—should expect to hold less weight than a reference. The former are most often rhetorical gimmicks or one-upmanship.
Heh, I never even considered being a metacontrarian about this. You’re probably right. I think I tend to unsympathetically interpret all missing citations. Still, it seems like most on LW would prefer the citation and a good number would notice its absence.
It depends on how controversial the research reference is. My tolerance for inappropriate ‘citation needed’ claims is far, far lower than than my tolerance for claims that are made as assertions rather than links. The latter are simply a different form of communication, and one that everyone—speaker and listener alike—should expect to hold less weight than a reference. The former are most often rhetorical gimmicks or one-upmanship.
Heh, I never even considered being a metacontrarian about this. You’re probably right. I think I tend to unsympathetically interpret all missing citations. Still, it seems like most on LW would prefer the citation and a good number would notice its absence.
It’s true. And I agree that the post in question would be improved with a reference. Link spam is the best thing about most posts!