You don’t publish because basically anything can be proven at n=15. I could probably go perform another study right now at n=15 and if I chose my variables right I could determine that social media has no effect whatsoever. And as much as you or I know not to read too much into this one study, there are plenty more people who won’t read too closely or carefully.
I'll put it bluntly. I don't care about people who read a single study and take it as gospel. Science would be nothing without all the studies that are published about every single topic. Even the most important findings are built on studies done before them.
> basically anything can be proven at n=15
Nothing was proven. The paper is literally a philosophical discussion about Heidegger leaning on a survey. If you think that proves anything, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a data point, nothing more and nothing less. It's an interesting perspective worth thinking about and investigating further.
You may not care, but science as a whole has a responsibility to do more help than harm. Anyways I feel like we’re kind of arguing past each other. I agree studies should be done; I just don’t think people should be getting news articles written up at n=15; that seems deceptive.
I'm ambivalent about the news article. It can be misleading, but I also wouldn't have found the paper and read through the whole thing without it, which I felt was a really interesting and valuable read.
