This is perhaps the point. In science critiquing ideas is not what you do, at least beyond ensuring that they are logically consistent. Instead, you critique results. Relativity is something that, intuitively, sounds completely foolish and plainly absurd. Yet it is absolutely and completely correct, so far as we can currently determine. Or take penicillin - that treating infections with something that emerges as a byproduct of the blue green rot in decaying matter is a good idea is something that would run contrary to any person of any sensibility - and indeed, its utilization was actually neglected for many years after its discovery due to the presumption that such an illogical result simply could not be correct.

In the social sciences this point has been lost since the inability to perform meaningful tests means all we're left with are ideas. Yet we can see quantifiable changes in society in the longrun over time and many of the views evangelized within the paper have certainly become more common place - with the authors going so far as to label them "the new ideals". Yet the results we can measure have been absolutely atrocious. But there seems to be little to no interest in consider why this may be. Instead it's onward to ever more new ideas supported by little more than intuition and studies that increasingly often cannot even be replicated built upon other studies that can't be replicated. And even this study builds upon that house of cards stating that previous studies trying to link what they linked were unsuccessful, yet with their 'new and improved' method of qualifying masculinity, they were able to finally show a link.