We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
defining your test uh uh and then picking the test that looks best we could have some groups excuse me actually do this though it's sort of unethical they look at the 80th percentile the 85th the 90th the 95th and then they say oh it looks best at the 90th let's pick the 90th that's not a good thing you will fool yourself you'll get false positives
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the other thing you want to be really careful of is defining your test uh and then picking the test that looks best we could have some groups excuse me actually do this though it's sort of unethical they look at the 80th percentile the 85th the 90th the 95th and then they say oh it looks best at the 90th let's pick the 90th that's not a good thing you will fool yourself you'll get false positives