= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
michaelcurzi comments on [Draft] How to Run a Successful Less Wrong Meetup - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
A nit: I and probably many LWers are allergic to phrases like "Psychological research suggests" that aren't followed by a citation.
Good point. I'll add links where appropriate.
It depends on how controversial the research reference is. My tolerance for inappropriate 'citation needed' claims is far, far lower than than my tolerance for claims that are made as assertions rather than links. The latter are simply a different form of communication, and one that everyone - speaker and listener alike - should expect to hold less weight than a reference. The former are most often rhetorical gimmicks or one-upmanship.
Heh, I never even considered being a metacontrarian about this. You're probably right. I think I tend to unsympathetically interpret all missing citations. Still, it seems like most on LW would prefer the citation and a good number would notice its absence.
It's true. And I agree that the post in question would be improved with a reference. Link spam is the best thing about most posts!