Is that how you read the articles? Is that how you expect everyone to read the articles? You just skip to conclusion and pretend that you now understand what it’s all about? Bloody hell, no wonder then. I know people like to link studies that don’t support their points, and I now get why, you actually think you do.
That is how you should read anything you are not an expert in, yes. A layperson can very often misunderstand what they are reading (mixing up correlation and causation for instance) and draws incorrect conclusions, so you defer to what the experts believe, i.e. their conclusion.
You should never, ever, under any circumstances, cherry-pick what parts of studies to read and use that to draw conclusions. You need to read all the words, experts believe all the words in the study they publish, unless it’s a citation predicated with “some idiots who are wrong also saying:”.
Whoever told you your way of reading lied to you, possibly taught you wrong way on purpose as a joke.
Is that how you read the articles? Is that how you expect everyone to read the articles? You just skip to conclusion and pretend that you now understand what it’s all about? Bloody hell, no wonder then. I know people like to link studies that don’t support their points, and I now get why, you actually think you do.
That is how you should read anything you are not an expert in, yes. A layperson can very often misunderstand what they are reading (mixing up correlation and causation for instance) and draws incorrect conclusions, so you defer to what the experts believe, i.e. their conclusion.
You should never, ever, under any circumstances, cherry-pick what parts of studies to read and use that to draw conclusions. You need to read all the words, experts believe all the words in the study they publish, unless it’s a citation predicated with “some idiots who are wrong also saying:”.
Whoever told you your way of reading lied to you, possibly taught you wrong way on purpose as a joke.