There are a host of potential problems with the experiment design as descried in the article, though since the original research is behind a paywall, I imagine

There are a host of potential problems with the experiment design as descried in the article, though since the original research is behind a paywall, I imagine I will remain ignorant of the excruciating experimental design details. The author of the SciAm article throws around such nonsense as "computer retouched" to make more attractive, as if the entire result did not depend on exactly how that was undertaken. It's doubtful that the results could be replicated and almost certain that they never will. This "science" is such bullshit and an utter waste of time and money. It does not broaden the scope of human knowledge, because 1) its probably not true, and 2) even if it is, it is only demonstrably true within a tiny context. We were far better off when psychologists did not conduct experiments, and just considered their experience and thought deeply. Covering a turd in a thin veneer of p-values and R-squareds does not make it science.