Overall, our findings point to a simpler explanation:
Learning with others may be effective because the human mind treats live social contexts as special, even when interaction is minimal. Interactivity can help, but it may not be the central ingredient to boost learning.

From consecutive replies to your post. Peer review in a nutshell

Agreed. Unfortunately, when we are students we all get used to writing to “show that we know things” rather than “to clearly and efficiently communicate”

Psy102: Introduction to Psychology I
Psy202: Introduction to Psychology II
Psy209: Industrial Psychology
Psy217: Psychology and Design
Psy706: Positive Psychology
Psy712: Human Memory
and...
Psy918: Advanced Social Psychology Seminar (a small seminar course that can be tailored to your interests!)

Chaotic Neutral

Which flavour?
Dark chocolate, d=6
Milk chocolate, d=2
White chocolate, d=0.1

It depends.
Tony’s Chocolonely, d=6.
Cadbury’s, d=2.
Hershey’s, d=0.1

22 years for me and I still get them before every class of the semester!

Into the afternoon now, Elisabeth Bik makes case that peer review cannot really detect fraud, because researchers don't know how to recognize it. Need professional fraud detectors. Elsevier rep in morning said they see more and more fraudulent submissions. Becoming a stress on system.

For the love of god put the sample size per condition somewhere in the paper

> go west

Psy905: Advanced Seminar in Clinical Psychology
Ps8303: Graduate course in Systems of Psychotherapy

Psy102: Introduction to Psychology I
Psy325: Psychological Disorders
Psy511: Research Methods and Statistics II
Psy602: Developmental Psychopathology
Psy654: Cognitive Psychology
Psy731: History and Theory of Psychology
Psy806: Behaviour Modification
Psy813: Psychology of Art and Creativity
...

I have never in my life heard thundersnow, until today. Also, thundersnow is a tremendously satisfying word.

Was waiting for the ad to say "Topic area would broadly be centered on cyborg cognition. "

So, the Knobe effect is that side effects that are seen as harmful are viewed as more intentional.
But does it necessarily follow that side effects viewed as intentional are seen as more harmful?

Would it be possible to share this afterwards, either as a video or set of slides?

(BTW, I think you have the wrong year written on the slide, unless I'm responding a year too late?)

I would feel okay with it if the old work had been shown to be wrong. But it feels like a lot of time and effort was spent on work that is "not even wrong" and instead is completely uninformative.