EDIT: fixed for link reference

One of the frontpage posts today is about a study involving puppies. The original poster used the following title: "In a group of 98 puppies (39 German shepherds, 44 Labrador retrievers and 15 golden retrievers) who were bred to become guide dogs for people with visual disabilities, it wasn't the pups who got the most licks and milk on demand that were most likely to succeed. It was the ones who didn’t." (The study is not linked here, please click through the Reddit link below.)

Essentially, puppies which were the least "spoiled" (i.e. nurtured beyond necessity for developmental growth; no puppy was developmentally stunted) were the most successful. The article includes the following quote:

As these gently-stressed babies grow into their own, they display better abilities to navigate around obstacles, to cope with unfamiliar settings and objects, and to suppress their instinctual responses than do dogs who commanded the lion’s share of mom’s milk and attention.

U-TURN MOMENT: Wow, I went to build a curated list and the entire comment thread has been nuked, more or less. Here's an anonymized link: Puppy Thread

Well, I'll try to salvage the topic by sharing what I recall. Take it with a grain of salt since I'm working off of memory and what's cached on mobile right now.

One user said that the outcome should be exactly the opposite. That the puppies who got the most "love" should be the most successful. No explanation given. Simply a fiat assertion.

Someone else suggested that the study was run by white supremacists. It might have been a parody post or meant to be humorous hyperbole, but the responses were pretty telling. "Only in Trump's America would there be a "scientific" study that says it's okay to not love a puppy." Remember, this was not a study about animal abuse, it was a study about not spoiling particular dogs during their development.

Another user said this:

These seems almost intuitive (if you've ever taken a class in psychology). Individuals who are rewarded more frequently for less effort don't value reward as strongly. It's like people and instant gratification. If you're used to getting your reward for minimal time and effort, you end up with ADHD-like behaviour, not valuing reward enough to pursue it.

Which got this response:

Your sources? If you've ever earned a degree in psychology, you should know how easy it is to believe your intuitive narrative, which conveniently supports your preconceived opinions, is the correct explanation. You would also know to understand that these explanations are usually bull.

The irony of that response is so brutal. It made me cringe. "You conclusion is wrong because it supports your narrative. Therefore my narrative-supporting conclusion is correct." The echo chamber is strong with this one.

Many users suggested that the study is invalid; there must've been too small of a sample size and that's why they got the wrong conclusion. There were MANY of these posts, all of them essentially claiming that developing puppies (and by proxy, humans) must be spoiled... and... this is the clincher...

...that if a puppy is spoiled, and ends up failing, it's not because it was spoiled and it's not the puppy's fault. That's only a coincidence. It has to be some external factor causing the puppy to fail.

Man, I really thought this was going to be awesome. But someone has pruned the shit out of that thread. Keep your eye on it for new developments.