

Also, if you put the same wine in different bottles, they pretty reliably prefer (and describe the rich complexities of) the more expensive bottles.
I knew an audiophile that believed the government had top secret technology for additional audio channels in surround sound setups, like 17.7 or something. I tried very hard to explain how you can buy an off the shelf 128 channel recorder/playback device, and have as many channels as you can feasibly buy and set up, and the reason a lot of media was recorded in 5.1 was because a 5.1 setup was considered at the upper end of what people would be willing to pay for. He moved his target in response, to now the government has top secret 1000 channel audio equipment.
I don’t know what the equivalent of the wine world is, but I hope never to meet it.

The language of the post says something that cannot be (meaningfully) derived without a control group of people that didn’t experience a counterpoint: “… the situation of being a young woman alone at night in a subway station being enough to generate the sense of fear.”
As I understand it, everyone in the study experienced all of that in combination, so any subset of those things may have been enough to generate a sense of fear: being alone, being at night, being a young woman, or being on a subway station.
The common objection I see is that everyone feels fear alone on a subway station at night, so the statement is misleading. That matches my personal experience, so I also see that statement as misleading, regardless of any work done by the study.