The findings may hold, but the conclusions? E.g., take the blurb about the Flanker task: > The task shows how we can’t help but process irrelevant information

The findings may hold, but the conclusions? E.g., take the blurb about the Flanker task: > The task shows how we can’t help but process irrelevant information to a certain degree. No, it doesn't. Not with the given information. At best, it shows that we don't blank out the area around the target. Is that "irrelevant information"? No. In this particular experiment perhaps, but if that's what the conclusion is based on, then that conclusion is limited to one specific artificial task. And while that is relevant for other research, it is not a general conclusion about our cognitive system. But basically what most of these experiments show is that the influence of priming/recency on reaction times is real, and it's not surprising: everybody finds it, although there is ample evidence that in some conditions slows down reaction. But that's it. There's no evidence in this list that priming extends to other parts of our behavior. Don't forget that the next time someone tries to draw far-reaching conclusions from e.g. the Implicit Association Test.