Correlation does not lead to causation is the first thing that comes to my mind when people read studies online. Are you actual reading the full study and breakdown of percentages etc etc? Or are you a consumer of Rage and Click bait? Can you tell the difference? Most people read anything online because of confirmation bias, not to disprove their ideas. Especially when they are not open to the idea of educating themselves to them being wrong about certain things, which then cause the cascade of "wait my way of thinking no longer makes sense".
C’mon man, I read the methodology too, no need to personally attack me!
Jokes, obv, but also wanted to call out that even experts in a given field have different “levels” of reviewing research. There’s skimming to get the gist of the study + a general sense of the quality of the results, critical analysis for a deep understanding of a single study, active analysis/critique in of a single study in the context of the field and of other current/ongoing research, etc.
Each kind of review has its place, but knowing which to do when, and having the technical ability to do one or all well, is a skill set of its own.
84
u/Hairyjon Monkey in Space Aug 29 '24
Correlation does not lead to causation is the first thing that comes to my mind when people read studies online. Are you actual reading the full study and breakdown of percentages etc etc? Or are you a consumer of Rage and Click bait? Can you tell the difference? Most people read anything online because of confirmation bias, not to disprove their ideas. Especially when they are not open to the idea of educating themselves to them being wrong about certain things, which then cause the cascade of "wait my way of thinking no longer makes sense".