And why, while flawed, the study isn't meaningless or worthless - everyone's take is just lacking nuance:
Ariel M. (she/her)
Yes mostly. The paper (still a preprint, so not peer-reviewed) does start off kinda strong in its claims compared to what the results show. But they acknowledge all the limitations too: - this captured brief AI exposure, so did not look at how these effects change with usage over time
Oct 11, 2026 at 9:50 PM
How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers
For decades, schools have taught children the strategies of struggling readers, using a theory about reading that cognitive scientists have repeatedly debunked. And many teachers and parents don't know there's anything wrong with it.
A Superficial Aesthetic of Moderation
Overvaluing the appearance of moderation can be a mistake, in that it can give undue credence to assertions that go unsubstantiated.
People Spend Too Much Time On Decisions with Equally Satisfying Outcomes
The pitfalls of analysis paralysis
The natural selection of bad science
Abstract. Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, sugg
The Imperfectionist: Interest is everything
Interest is everything Each time I sit down to choose a topic for this newsletter, there’s a moment when my self-important inner judge – who loves to involve himself in such mat...
Opinion | My Students Can’t Read
The generational collapse in literacy is measurable, persistent, and likely to get worse.
Willingness to look stupid is a genuine moat in creative work
Looking foolish is underrated.
Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters by Steven Pinker
In the twenty-first century, humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding—and at ...
What we think is a decline in literacy is a design problem | Aeon Essays
Your inability to focus isn’t a failing. It’s a design problem, and the answer isn’t getting rid of our screen time
π = 3: Pointing out flaws does not require solving them
I think science often takes the requirement that criticism be constructive too far. Most definitions of constructive criticism refer to feedback that is intended to help by pointing out flaws in a way that is specific, actionable, and respectful. This is good, I’m in favor of it. However, in practice, the demands for constructive criticism in science go much further: frequently, we are told that, to publicly point out serious flaws, you must also solve them, and to do otherwise is somehow rude, unscholarly, or low effort.
Don't Just Fact-Check Misinformation. First, Understand The Value It Holds. A Conversation w Researchers Michael Simeone & Kristy Roschke
Podcast Episode · Why Should I Trust You? · June 25 · 1h 7m
Why major life decisions should be approached with ‘epistemic humility’ | Psyche Videos
At a crossroads in life? No matter how much you deliberate, one unknowable remains: the person you will be on the other side
when everyone has a different explanation of why the bad numbers are not that bad or why the small number is still very important, the simplest explanation is that the bad number is actually just indeed very bad
Christopher Mims
So I guess either Bluesky becomes a nonprofit or we all start sharing our Threads handles on here…?
I am disappointed by the fact that so many seem tempted to share a "nonrigorous", unserious attempt at quantifying fraud in science because it passes some silly vibe check ("I asked others and they agree"). So in the name of good science, we're ready to produce bad science as a rhetorical tool.
