butterpear's comments

I recommend you read the original studies on replication, and their primary coverage, rather than Taleb's slant that tends to be driven by his own issues.

It's not just psychological studies, it's a range of fields, from neuroscience to psychology to oncology. By a reading of that literature, you should be skeptical of most studies. In fact, if you were to caution someone about replicability, it might be just as accurate to frame it as "as a machine learning study, you should take its generalizability with a grain of salt given the specific data sources involved." Psychologists are the messengers; replicability studies are a natural offshoot of meta-analysis, which also has its modern origins in psychology.

Also, this study doesn't really claim any sort of causal anything. It's just reporting differences in language use. The primary application of something like this is screening. There are some implications about causal hypotheses (absolutist thinking is a classic target of cognitive-behavioral therapies, which do have a fair amount of experimental support), but this paper is pretty agnostic about that sort of thing.

Somewhere recently I saw a tetris variant that, in addition to normal play, allowed for competitive play, where your opponent selects the blocks. There was an option for playing against an AI, which seems very similar to this. I wish I could remember what the name of it was.