• A. O. Scott of The New York Times felt the film "has the grandeur and authority of the best long-form nonfiction. If it were a book, it could sit on the shelf alongside The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer and the great biographical works of Robert Caro. It's very much a film, though, a feat of tireless research, dogged interviewing and skillful editing." However, Scott felt a "significant blind spot" for the film was its "predominance of male voices among the interview subjects, and the narrowness of the film's discussion of domestic violence... [T]he film, which so persuasively treats law enforcement racism as a systemic problem, can't figure out how to treat violence against women with the same kind of rigor or nuance", adding that "O. J. Simpson is viewed as a symbol" while "Nicole Brown Simpson's fate, in contrast, is treated as an individual tragedy, and there seems to be no political vocabulary available to the filmmakers to understand what happened to her. The deep links between misogyny and American sports culture remain unexamined."^[18]

   
• A. O. Scott of The New York Times felt the film "has the grandeur and authority of the best long-form nonfiction. If it were a book, it could sit on the shelf alongside The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer and the great biographical works of Robert Caro. It's very much a film, though, a feat of tireless research, dogged interviewing and skillful editing." However, Scott felt a "significant blind spot" for the film was its "predominance of male voices among the interview subjects, and the narrowness of the film's discussion of domestic violence... [T]he film, which so persuasively treats law enforcement racism as a systemic problem, can't figure out how to treat violence against women with the same kind of rigor or nuance", adding that "O. J. Simpson is viewed as a symbol" while "Nicole Brown Simpson's fate, in contrast, is treated as an individual tragedy, and there seems to be no political vocabulary available to the filmmakers to understand what happened to her. The deep links between misogyny and American sports culture remain unexamined."^[25]

• Many variations in wording of the Linda problem were studied by Tversky and Kahneman.^[3] If the first option is changed to obey conversational relevance, i.e., "Linda is a bank teller whether or not she is active in the feminist movement" the effect is decreased, but the majority (57%) of the respondents still commit the conjunction error. If the probability is changed to frequency format (see debiasing section below) the effect is reduced or eliminated. However, studies exist in which indistinguishable conjunction fallacy rates have been observed with stimuli framed in terms of probabilities versus frequencies.^[9]

   
• If the first option is changed to obey conversational relevance, i.e., "Linda is a bank teller whether or not she is active in the feminist movement" the effect is decreased, but the majority (57%) of the respondents still commit the conjunction error.
• It has also been shown that the conjunction fallacy becomes less prevalent when subjects are allowed to consult with other subjects.^[15]

• In one experiment the question of the Linda problem was reformulated as follows: 

   

  There are 100 persons who fit the description above (that is, Linda's). How many of them are:

   

  • Bank tellers? __ of 100
   
  • Bank tellers and active in the feminist movement? __ of 100

   

  Whereas previously 85% of participants gave the wrong answer (bank teller and active in the feminist movement), in experiments done with this questioning none of the participants gave a wrong answer.^[18]

2 more annotations...

• Using another metaphor, Weigel compares the experience to being cast in a bad piece of experimental theatre: “You and a partner showed up every night with different, conflicting scripts. You did your best.” This makes dating sound a lot like a recurring anxiety dream. You’d have to be a masochist not to try to wake yourself up.
• Compared with dating, calling sounds unbearably repressive. Weigel points out that it turned women, primly cloistered in their drawing rooms, into passive objects of male desire. (In “The Glass Menagerie,” Amanda Wingfield, with her fantasy of a “gentleman caller,” suggests the more destructive effects of this philosophy.)
• Another girl tells Sales that social media is “destroying our lives.” Sales asks why she doesn’t quit. “Because then we would have no life,” she is told.
• Traister got married when she was thirty-five, to a man who was a decade older. At that age, she writes, “one of us was not simply going to subsume the other.” In other words, they had selves, ones they wanted to keep and share. The best part of hitting the dating jackpot on the first go-round also sometimes turns out to be the worst: you might get just what you thought you wanted.

2 more annotations...

• You made it very clear that you were interested before and she made it clear that she was not. If she has changed her mind, the onus is on her to make it just as clear. In all probability, she has not changed her mind. Do not waste another minute pursuing her.
• To be frank, it sounds to me like she is using her knowledge of your affection for her as a crutch while she deals with her break up. She knows that you adore her, and she can depend on you for positive reinforcement. I don't mean to imply that her behavior is malicious in any way, in fact, I doubt that she realizes that she's giving you signals at all.
• You made it very clear that you were interested before and she made it clear that she was not. If she has changed her mind, the onus is on her to make it just as clear. In all probability, she has not changed her mind. Do not waste another minute pursuing her.
  

1 more annotation...