The article on When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

The article titled When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

The article titled When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy, which was released on October 18, 2017, ought to have provided additional proof as to why detractors believe Amy Cuddy's study is unreliable. Some of the material is purely biased (Dominus, Susan). I think claims disputing a certain study ought to be supported by evidence, which the article neglects to take into account.

Irrelevance of Certain Information

Additionally, some of the information seems to be unrelated. As an illustration, the article goes into too much information about Cuddy and Simmons, which in my opinion doesn't matter much in terms of the subject at hand. The essay need to have provided a cursory or minimal understanding of their relationship (Dominus, Susan). To some extent, the article appears to digress from the main subject which is Amy Cuddy. The writer has dwelled too much on the statistical analysis of the p-hacking issue. It's okay to talk about the revelations, but I feel like the writer shouldn't have dwelled too much on the nitty-gritty. Alternatively, the article should have given a transitory information about the issue and then present Simmons findings (Dominus, Susan).

Length of the Article

Finally, the article is too long, especially when compared to other conventional publications. Stretched reading is known to have the effect of losing the reader's attention and sometimes end up not finishing reading it. I understand the need for detailed information but going forward I would recommend precise and average length writings.

Work Cited

Dominus, Susan. "When The Revolution Came For Amy Cuddy." Nytimes.Com, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html.