And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.
> not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset
Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal.
> your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part
Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...
One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.
It's a "total dataset" of the most narrow and small sample size possible. You are being very deceptive here by trying to dismiss the guy's concern over small sample size with "total dataset" as if that compensates for a minuscule sample size. The supreme court ( all nine or so members ) and the oral arguments isn't a sample size worth drawing any objective general conclusions from. You might as well draw general physical conditions of americans based solely on the los angeles lakers.
> And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.
You are projecting here. The only one who cherrypicked here is you. The guy responded to your cherrypicked data.