Fortunately science is self-correcting; I’m sure that the authors will reverse their conclusion once they realize that they got the evidence backwards. I look forward to “the light side of EA entrepreneurship” in a forthcoming edition of Frontiers in Psychology.
Unfortunately, this methodology of “collect some texts; extract themes that we say are salient” seems very common in the social sciences. Fixing the method is unlikely, but pointing out concrete errors still seems prosocial.
I’d give you 100 epistemic hygiene points to contact the authors and point out this error.
Alas, poor reading comprehension is common everywhere.
My guess is that it wouldn’t work, but I’ve been trying to figure out a technological solution.
Fortunately science is self-correcting; I’m sure that the authors will reverse their conclusion once they realize that they got the evidence backwards. I look forward to “the light side of EA entrepreneurship” in a forthcoming edition of Frontiers in Psychology.
Haha love this, always appreciate the sparse morsels of banter on the forum ;)
Ha, if only!
Unfortunately, this methodology of “collect some texts; extract themes that we say are salient” seems very common in the social sciences. Fixing the method is unlikely, but pointing out concrete errors still seems prosocial.
I’d give you 100 epistemic hygiene points to contact the authors and point out this error.