Hello and welcome to Series Inquiries Only. This is episode 325. Love those nice, even

numbers. Maybe we retire after this one. Quick, and at this further moment decision, just

nah, nah, let's not. Let's go more episodes. We'll hit a better number, I'm sure.

Yeah, there's so, there's so many more, there's always better numbers over the horizon.

That's exactly. This is part two of our persuasion. Make sure you catch part one if you missed

it. The last episode discussed the first part of this, and you know, I want to open it up

with, I was about to say this is a big meta study, but you have said it's not that, and

basic science question for non-science people like me. What is this and what's the difference

between what this is in a meta study? So this is a review paper. They're just sort of

going through all of the literature on this particular question and then synthesizing

it. So it's like a narrative review. If you're doing, if you're doing a meta analysis,

that means that you're actually collecting the effect sizes from past studies and analyzing

those. Gotcha. Why would you do one versus the other? It's just the kind of data you have

or what? It's, I mean, it's the kind of question that you're asking. I mean, meta analyses

are usually geared toward like figuring out how consistent an effect is or the moderators

of a particular effect, right? They're usually trying to figure out something about the state

of the evidence. The goal in this paper, like Hussein and Tormala's goal, is just to sort

of like do this kind of narrative synthesis and make the argument that like maybe all

these things are related to persuasion because they operate through receptivity. So it's

the goal probably like a meta analysis might be less relevant to answering that question.

Okay. Yeah. Cool. Well, let's get back to our not a meta analysis. This is our review paper.

Maybe give us, do you want to give us the quick previously on? Which just for fun because I

...