I'm a big fan of digging deep when it comes to science reporting. It generally isn't that hard to find some serious flaws: Small samples, questionable methodology, and conclusions that stretch far are sometimes par for the course. But when I posted about a study showing bullies may actually enjoy inflicting pain on others, I didn't poke into it much at all.
At least I'm in venerable company, because the New York Times did the same thing.
At Slate they point out some very serious problems with the study, which used MRIs to study the response of "bullies" to images of pain inflicted on others. For example, the study didn't image brains during actual bullying, so the results have more to do with how subjects responded as observers than perpetrators. And teh sample was made up of people who could probably be more accurately characterized as sociopaths than just bullies. The results of the scans themselves are open to pretty wide interpretation.
Slate uses this story to show how the Times reporter just drew from the press release with very little independent reporting. I'm on this one because it was a good reminder to me to think critically when looking at studies getting a pass in the press. Especially when I'm adding to the chorus.
Related:
The Painful Reason Bullies Bully
They Say: Why Your Kid's A Bully Magnet
