This empirical paper has been cited 1616 times but I don’t find it convincing. There’s no single fatal flaw, but the evidence does not seem so clear. How to think about this sort of thing? What to do? First, accept that evidence might not all go in one direction. Second, make lots of graphs. Also, an amusing story about how this paper is getting cited nowadays.

A record is what was published and who pointed at it. The text of the post is not held here: read it at the source, or at its Wayback capture.

First cited

—

Most recent

—

Rank this month

not ranked

External links

6

Words captured

2,800