I’m not saying that it’s wrong to ask for a more detailed analysis, but I suspect that you might not get very many answers.
I think your prediction is likely correct. My another motivation (which I didn’t want to name, not to seem hostile), was precisely increasing the cost of posting an answer.
In my previous attempt at answering this question I found that there was a lot of people flooding me with large amounts of vague references. The cost of sifting through those outweighed the benefit (if any) of broadening my search space. To be honest, it was all noise and no signal. But then again, I wasn’t posing the question to a rationalist community.
But most LW readers aren’t experts at verifying the validity of psychological studies; I know that I’m not.
I’m not either. But the manipulations and shortcomings I’ve seen so far were painfully obvious. Maybe I missed some, but still I would rather trust my honest scrutiny, even if lacking expertise in the field, than the academics and journal editors in the field whose incentive system I don’t understand.
I think your prediction is likely correct. My another motivation (which I didn’t want to name, not to seem hostile), was precisely increasing the cost of posting an answer.
In my previous attempt at answering this question I found that there was a lot of people flooding me with large amounts of vague references. The cost of sifting through those outweighed the benefit (if any) of broadening my search space. To be honest, it was all noise and no signal. But then again, I wasn’t posing the question to a rationalist community.
I’m not either. But the manipulations and shortcomings I’ve seen so far were painfully obvious. Maybe I missed some, but still I would rather trust my honest scrutiny, even if lacking expertise in the field, than the academics and journal editors in the field whose incentive system I don’t understand.