<p><pre><code>   Would you care to elaborate
</code></pre>
A lot of &#x27;studies&#x27; in the humanities are based on plain	and
methodologically naive questionaires, with low n and questionable
statistical methods. One of the great social thinkers of the 20th
century once called the ongoing inability to make any meaningful
inferences from what people say to what they do the great shame of
social sciences.  There were a bunch of discussions about lack of
repeatability in psychology just recently on HN.<p>Anyway, we both agree on the systematic repeatability problem in social sciences.<p><pre><code>   A used car salesperson&#x27;s motives are crystal clear, 
   which is why their opinion is justifiably taken 
   with a pinch of salt.
</code></pre>
A gender studies researcher&#x27;s motives are crystal clear, which is why
their opinion is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt.<p><pre><code>   uncomplicated incentive to lie.

</code></pre>
The world &quot;lie&quot; is lacking nuance. Why did you introduce it? There is
a whole ocean between mathematical truth talking (e.g. 2+3 = 6) on one
end and straightforward lies (e.g. my username on HN is mafribe) on
the other.  You are fond of the phrase &quot;unconscious bias&quot;, but have
you ever applied that concept to yourself, or to texts like [0, 1, 2,
3, 4]? If not, why not?