The Ladder of Abstraction: Understanding Communication Gaps

Who created and checked this page

Correction history

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 28 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Corrected six unsupported or mischaracterized claims: removed a fabricated 34% construal-level meta-analytic result (and re-cited Trope and Liberman's 2010 Psychological Review as a theory review, not a 2007 meta-analysis); flagged the Eagly-Chaiken one-week counterargument result as unverified; removed Pinker's fabricated 50-paragraph 84%/31% corpus statistic; corrected the New Zealand Plain Language Act 2022 characterization (audience-appropriate, clear, concise, well-organised, with no concrete-examples requirement) and removed an unverified EQC 41% / 34-to-67% survey figure; removed a fabricated Google Project Aristotle 23% decision-quality coding scheme (restoring its five documented team dynamics); and softened an overstated Columbia Accident Investigation Board counterfactual to the Board's documented multiple contributing factors.

   Before

   The article cited a 2007 Trope-Liberman meta-analysis (34% reduction), an Eagly-Chaiken one-week counterargument result, a Pinker corpus analysis (50 paragraphs, 84% vs 31%), an NZ Plain Language Act requiring concrete examples with EQC surveys rising 34% to 67%, a Google Project Aristotle 23% decision-quality effect after controls, and an implied CAIB conclusion that concrete framing might have changed the Columbia outcome.

   After

   Removed the fabricated statistics and coding schemes, corrected the mis-citations and the legal characterization, and qualified the counterfactual, while retaining the genuinely documented material (Construal Level Theory, Pinker's Sense of Style as a style guide, Project Aristotle's five team dynamics, and the CAIB's multiple contributing factors).

   Why: These studies and statistics could not be located in the cited sources and carry the signature of fabricated citations. Policy is to remove invented specifics and correct mischaracterizations rather than substitute new unverified sources.

   View the full record →

Full contribution timeline

1. Correction 28 July 2026

   Emir Baycan: Corrected six unsupported or mischaracterized claims: removed a fabricated 34% construal-level meta-analytic result (and re-cited Trope and Liberman's 2010 Psychological Review as a theory review, not a 2007 meta-analysis); flagged the Eagly-Chaiken one-week counterargument result as unverified; removed Pinker's fabricated 50-paragraph 84%/31% corpus statistic; corrected the New Zealand Plain Language Act 2022 characterization (audience-appropriate, clear, concise, well-organised, with no concrete-examples requirement) and removed an unverified EQC 41% / 34-to-67% survey figure; removed a fabricated Google Project Aristotle 23% decision-quality coding scheme (restoring its five documented team dynamics); and softened an overstated Columbia Accident Investigation Board counterfactual to the Board's documented multiple contributing factors.

   Proof record →