I've always been uncomfortable with these kinds of ideas. The odds that the idea will be correctly applied is heavily tied to intelligence, culture, and situati

I've always been uncomfortable with these kinds of ideas. The odds that the idea will be correctly applied is heavily tied to intelligence, culture, and situation. Instead of reducing the space of options you must consider, all it says is that you should "do it this way when you should and do it the other when you shouldn't." I suppose perhaps it is useful to highlight that the decision exists, but I would be surprised if anyone working in the space is unaware of the existence of the decision. The scientific method has a similar problem. A scientist should form their hypothesis before gathering data to evaluate the hypothesis. If a scientist fails to do this, and starts engaging in p-hacking or data dredging, the quality of their research greatly declines. But proving that a hypothesis was obtained before data was collected is not usually provable when just looking at the publication itself. And further, there are ways that data dredging can unintentionally sneak into the scientific process, especially around the phase before hypothesis- observation. This kind of idea has large technical impact, but doesn't have a solid technical reason. It's proof is closer to aesthetics than reason. And much like other aesthetic beliefs, a population believes it based on no deeper reasoning. Only exclusion or indoctrination can ensure the population's view, and only illogical rhetoric will change it.