I believe the correct term is 'anectdata.' The article uses a study with many participants to try to explain it, while this comment does not.
I am a psychologist. Take a look at my comment history.
About the study, it just asks people. Do you expect people to be truthful?
You should consider asking people if they'll do something amoral if you offer them money, also tell them you are doing this for a study.
And you'll see majority of people will answer, NO.
But in realife, you can pay people to do ammoral things and lot many people will be willing to accept it.
In some cases, they'll need a long term connection with you before they take your offer.
Study isn't necessarily always more accurate. Specially, if it's about self reported data regarding humans on subjective matters.
You can ask someone, how many times they had sex.
You might get an accurate answer. But you can't expect accurate answer when you ask them, why aren't they having more sex. Most people don't have introspection ability to accurately identify their real reasons. This is why you need a pyscologist which is what I am.
You've presented only anecdata, then incessantly restated your credentials to shroud them in authority. But there are a lot of psychologists, and a decent proportion of those are crackpots. How can I trust you're not a crackpot?
So I decided to use "this is a psycologist".
Both of which are factually correct. If it makes, it appeal to authority in my case then it's equally applicable to the study defined in the article.
See, i am not presenting here any groundbreaking theory or refuting anything stated in the article but merely stating my experience.
How can it make me a crackpot?