I really like your posts, but this one is incomprehensible. I think the point is that current approaches lack the sophistication intimated by much older research, but it is much harder to decipher than most of your stuff.
Also the photo of the quote in the middle is repeated
Thanks for giving it a try, Matt. Appreciate the feedback. I deleted the double pic. It’s not really incomprehensible. There’s just a lot going on. Let me know what you’re having trouble following—or not. This one is worth the trouble, I think. Did you read the second part I published later yesterday?
I really like your posts, but this one is incomprehensible. I think the point is that current approaches lack the sophistication intimated by much older research, but it is much harder to decipher than most of your stuff.
Also the photo of the quote in the middle is repeated
Thanks for giving it a try, Matt. Appreciate the feedback. I deleted the double pic. It’s not really incomprehensible. There’s just a lot going on. Let me know what you’re having trouble following—or not. This one is worth the trouble, I think. Did you read the second part I published later yesterday?