Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Has it been falsified? That is, empirically shown to be not true with regard to large populations (as opposed to individual counter-examples)?
That’s what the quote I posted said; the individual counter-examples are one thing, but the main thing is the complete lack of evidence for it.
Fair point, the quote did say that. Interesting.