>>24
Meh. The vast majority of psychology "experiments" consist of taking a bunch of toddlers, having them watch cartoons, and then observing their behavior through a one-way mirror.
"Look at little Billy there. I think he feels aggressive. Don't you think he feels aggressive? Do you think I should put down a '6' on the aggression scale for him?" "Put down an '8,' he's curling his upper lip."
Even better are the "meta-analysis" papers, which consist of statistical analysis of prior papers' statistical analyses. But of course the "researcher," if that is the word I want, can't analyze all the papers in the world. He will have to pick and choose. Which ones will he analyze? The ones that support the position he's already chosen, of course! Can you say "cherry-picking," boys and girls?
It's a crock of shit from top to bottom and end to end. It's a racket. The "social sciences" are about as scientific as fortunetelling.