The same applies to Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and the addiction study involving mice that is referred to every time an article on addiction appears on HN (whi

The same applies to Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and the addiction study involving mice that is referred to every time an article on addiction appears on HN (which seems to be a weekly thing almost). I see these things as little more than memes at this point. I suppose the purpose they serve is to question commonly-held beliefs, which is not all bad. I just wish we'd question these things based on valid information. (to be clear, it's not so much that the two examples I'm using are considered 100% bunk. It's rather that they're generally accepted to not be too well-supported, and definitely not well enough to cite them so much)