It is kind of alarming, when summarising a thing, how omitting details from the described events makes them sound highly dubious (”An experiment showed that”), and how editing to include more or less irrelevant details (”An experiment by a pair of Australian researchers, Megan Oaten and Ken Cheng, in 2006, showed that”) suddenly makes them sound credible again.
I kind of feel like I should respond by throwing out the irrelevant detail on purpose, but what I’m actually going to do, in order to not be self-sabotaging (and save conscious effort) is continue writing what seems to flow naturally.
(Some of this should sound dubious, anyway; some of these experiments strike me as questionably designed. Although allegedly there’s others backing them up.)