Yes, I understand that they are not complex, also thank you for using italic and bold to further emphasise your point. Thanks also for letting everyone on BF what three criteria you 'deem to be necessary'. Jolly good show old chap.
I have a picture in my mind of you sitting on a chersterfield couch wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches, really really should be a Melbourne fan, you'd fit right in.
Person x makes a big Psychological claim and says they can acquire published papers showing these effects.
I, months away from registration as a professional in the field (inb4 'thanks for letting everyone on BF know'), who has been obliged to read thousands of good and bad published papers would tend to be interested in said claim. I state three criteria of papers (that the person said they could acquire - which you seem to keep overlooking) that I require that would deem said claim to be believable, keeping in mind a healthy skepticism about file drawer biases I expressed in my original reply to said person.
Then you keep belittling me for the use of these terms and state I'm trying to act more intelligent than I actually am for what possible reason? Do you not find it ridiculous that an outsider would state that one in two people are trying to make themselves seem intelligent for using wholly appropriate language in conversation? In any other context, would you do the same to two people with assumed backgrounds in Psychology and statistics?
If you concede that the terms aren't complex, and therefore possibly quite non-complex, then why are you so bothered at my use of understandable terminology? How would I make myself seem intelligent by using simple and context-appropriate terminology with a person who said they could acquire a host of published papers? You do realise that your constant belittling of me speaks more about you than me right?