Project Implicit.

[Occhidiangela]

Psychologists, Economists, and Astrologers are all at the same level of 'science'.  Ask the same question to enough of them and you'll get the answer you're after, the completely opposite answer, and an answer you didn't expect... and all of them will be able to 'prove' that their answer is the correct one.
[right][snapback]94838[/snapback][/right]

While my gut feel is that you are absolutely right, some of the proofs will work logically if the assumptions and initial conditions are crafted well enough, and variables are all accounted for. If we could control variables that easily IRL, I am guessing the Brave New World would have already arrived. That's the catch, isn't it, accounting for variation, or inherent variables?

Filtering cause and effect in human behavior is extremely difficult. I've had to delve into that under the limited case of training people how to fly. I do not envy the psychologists their challenges, due to the interaction of many inputs to an output, or series of outputs.

What disturbs me are the glib conclusions passed on to the public (or to decision makers) "because a study indicated such and so" without reference to boundary conditions, assumptions, and critical review of the study's biases. The hardest thing, I think, is to recognize the assumptions you don't realize you are making.

Occhi