The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

stefan_berlin said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Worth separating that from the pharmacology, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

stefan_berlin said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

stefan_berlin said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.