It's a coarse, hand-wavy model that had no neurological underpinning at the time. It does have merit: it can explain some phenomena and brought it to the attent

It's a coarse, hand-wavy model that had no neurological underpinning at the time. It does have merit: it can explain some phenomena and brought it to the attention of a wider audience that the human mind isn't really logical or rational, and that you should think twice before making a decision. But it's never been "accurate". > I'm sure the field of psychology has made progress I doubt it. The "myriad of sources" you mention probably include a large number of papers that cannot be replicated, or have been refuted in other papers, or whose conclusions were much broader than the experiments warranted. That's a very common pattern in psychology. It doesn't seem to be able to progress beyond that. From my own area of expertise: it's 90 years ago that Stroop found that naming a color is more difficult if the word is the name of one color, but the word is written in another color. This study hasn't only been confirmed thousands of times, it's easy to note when you do it yourself. Despite an immense amount of studies into this particular phenomenon, and all potential brain processes around it, and despite the fact that it's a very reliable and large effect (500ms), there is no deeply grounded explanation beyond "there's interference." The complexity of the mind is simply too large to understand even the process of reading a word and pronouncing it in detail.