I like the overall lack of bullshit psypost articles on Lemmy and would like to keep it that way.

If you see a psypost article you should be suspicious.

If you see a psypost article about a paper with a conclusion that you agree with you should be extra suspicious.

EDIT: And now I’ve bothered to read the abstract of the paper and the first bit of the psypost article and they don’t say the same fucking thing.

The journal article is saying they identified brain regions associated with fundamentalism by looking at brain lesions. There may be a seemingly obvious connection to say that the brain lesions caused the fundamentalism, but I don’t see them actually say that after skimming the full text. They focus on what regions are associated with fundamentalism using lesions as a tool to find them.

The psypost article says in the first sentence the damage changes the likelihood of fundamentalism.