Quote Originally Posted by Red_Wolf View Post
The studies were published in journals. The links were right there. I didn't dissect them but I'm also not quoting any conclusions from them. I have faith that academics can count in a sample size without needing a peer review or an expert in pyschology.
Yes, I followed the links. You are not quoting conclusions as such, but you are leaning heavily on their conclusions. dissecting their report or study is not necessary to know that the sample size is small, the selection criteria are not rigorously explored and the methodology is not really elaborated upon.

Sample size has nothing to do with peer review or psychology it has to do with statistical validity, as does the selection method for the sample. Peer review is a process by which papers are reviewed by peers in the relevant field before publication to prevent 'bad' research from making it to journals and places like Slate.

The article you linked draws it's conclusions largely from the first study it provides a link to, and mentions the others in passing.

You dropped into the topic to state your opinion very strongly as if it were incontrovertible fact, and then when challenged provided one link who's primary source was a non peer-review journal article by journalism and Information sciences academics, not psychologists. Having faith in academics is all fine and well, assuming that they are at least in the correct field...