It was extensively cited, and written by a professional researcher using their real name who has no particular axe to grind - what more could you possibly ask for?
Maybe I’m just bad at their site but I can’t see any name other than Elizabeth, I can’t see their professional credentials nor does it seem likely that a couple of hours work looking into something that at best produces a tiny effect is sufficient to establish a good meta-review of the relevant literature. For example there’s no real attempt to gauge the quality of the papers cited. Reading the report makes me suspect the author is less than convinced.
From passing familiarity and a bit of a browse around LessWrong is a great place for pretentious airs, florid prose and lengthy posts but none of that makes things inherently more accurate. And for this kind of reporting accuracy of the result is pretty important.
It's not the only reason, but it is definitely one. It's part of a kind of "baloney detection kit", inspired by Carl Sagan; or something like the Crackpot Index. You should of course assess claims made by people in circles and websites frequented by cranks, but bear in mind mostly cranks post in those websites.
Likewise, if you read claims in websites where UFO conspiracy theories often post, you may find a nugget of truth, but it'd be healthy to keep a strong dose of skepticism. Reasonable people don't post in UFO conspiracy sites; likewise with LessWrong.
First of all, I know a lot of people disagree with lesswrong's consensus opinions on some contentious topics, but comparing it to a UFO site is a stretch. Second, when you dislike a website but see an essay hosted on it get highly upvoted, the skeptical thing to do is to update your opinion of the site, not maintain it despite new evidence to the contrary.
