Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

This is a fascinating article. I'm not a linguist, but was able to follow their arguments.

My (admitted non-practitioner) criticism is that their analysis looks at the corpus of only one writer. They pick up significant differences in language use between true articles and articles where it is known the writer was intending to deceive. What's not clear is whether this difference is larger or smaller than the obvious differences in language use between authors. If smaller, their technique is only useful for analyzing the body of work of an individual, but isn't that useful for checking whether texts from a different author are deceptive.

[removed]