Ehh there's probably strong criticisms to be made of Prof. Sunstein along the lines made here, but this article is at various points conclusory, glib, and shallow.<p>For example, "Actually, no, their study said nothing at all about doctors, accountants, or architects. They just made that part up to make it sound more relevant."<p>Yes, they want to tell people why the research might be relevant or interesting. The quoted portion of the article says "Our study . . . found that knowing about people’s political beliefs did interfere with the ability to assess those people’s expertise in other, unrelated domains." Sounds to me like the article merely seeks to show a general point. Who cares whether it deals specifically with things that were mentioned to provide some context as to why anyone should care? This guy is just cherry-picking a quote, taking it out of context, and arguably misrepresenting what the paper even wanted to show.<p>He wants to nitpick Sunstein, but then expects us to accept his sarcastic quip that Sunstein may not be one of the "the most brilliant minds in American law" even though he's a stats professor and not a law professor? I guess it's fair insofar as Sunstein is a law prof who is leveraging stats and behavioral economics in a way a lot of experts in that field apparently don't like, but I don't find this guy's argument helped by this kind of sophomoric statement.