@ImHardcory @EPoe187 Can you run some more participants on this part of the study? This p value is way too suspicious. Just add another 300 and update results.pic.twitter.com/d3lTlR7ekm
-
These kinds of multi-study papers often rely on cherry picked studies that worked (Bem being the master of this). So while the Bayesian angle makes sense, it is not strong given this typical publishing pattern. Hence, makes sense to boost even the weakest study to avoid doubts.
Sure, but readers will not take so much notice of that. If you want to publish counter-narrative findings, your evidence must really be spotless. And even then, you know critics will find something (remember the 2:1 female favored hiring study?).
