For those who might be confused, Dan doesn't appear to be the author of the OP, Dan is Quoted by the author

I don't get the point of this comment. So, there's a quote in the article by 'Dan Ariely'. The quote is 'Humans are predictably irrational'

So what if Dan Ariely is a fraud, a crazy or a madman. If something someone says seems valuable to you, take it. Why does their history matter?

As a note to the author/OP, nothing more

The post you link uncovers apparent frauds in research from 2012 and 2020. Ariely's reply says that he received the data in good faith, and that it was provided by private insurance companies. He also thanks the post authors for their work.

This doesn't paint him as a fraud, but as a victim of fraud.

There's been enough follow-up on this case to come to the conclusion that he fabricated the data. The Hartford insurance company's statement contradicts his claim. The PNAS study was retracted after the Data Colada article and there are anomalies in his other work.

[0]: https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/everyone-involved-in-dan-ariel...

[1]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-...

[2]: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...

> It is clear the data was manipulated inappropriately and supplemented by synthesized or fabricated data.

Oh dear, far more damning. Thanks for the links.