• dil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.

    The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that’s where the difference lies.

    I’m not a big stats person, but I’m coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.