The prior for priming effects as strong as those claimed by psychology is, obviously, extremely low. After all, the only reason everybody knows about priming is

The prior for priming effects as strong as those claimed by psychology is, obviously, extremely low. After all, the only reason everybody knows about priming is that it got lots of press coverage, because it was surprising and unexpected. Now that we know the evidence for it is very weak, we can just go back to our original prior for it, which was very low. In general this is true for almost all popular psychology results. They're all popular because they're surprising, which is what makes them interesting. And now we are learning that such surprises were only produced in the first place because the evidence for them was p-hacked. It turns out that there are no tiny hacks that radically change human behavior, beyond placebo effect. I'm sure that psychology produces some real results, but whatever they are, they aren't what get reported in the New York Times, or TED talks, or bestselling pop science books.