Thank you for pointing out the issues behind “priming”. The cult of believers that’s grown up around Daniel Kahneman and others (including many in the Positive Psychology) field is distressing. To Kahneman’s credit, even he recognized issues within the field back a couple of years in an online post.

Some issues that come to mind in this field are 1). Scientists who want to be famous, do TED talks, and get that sweet sweet consulting money instead of humbly contributing to the field and 2). The ethical issues all of this has when these findings are applied to things like Facebook, various apps, etc.

Also to take a page from the gender movement, what’s with the binaryness of liberal and conservative? Those were handy labels at one point, but they’ve utterly failed to catch up to the world we’re in. A lot of liberals are now arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy, while conservatives are starting to back unions (conservatives and unions tends to unite every 60 years or so around the issue of immigration). These labels are old and useless.

> A lot of liberals are now arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy...

Would you please provide your evidence for this? Or do you mean a lot of Democrats are arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy?

I should have said Democrats you’re correct, I used “liberals” as a tenuous shorthand. Look at Clinton’s approach to Russia vs Trump, although confusingly this is reversed in the case of China.

Thanks for clarifying.

If labels are failing, it's kind of hard to provide evidence that requires labeling people.

Why not just describe what you wanted to convey via the labels. If you're working on a specific idea, then "people who agree that..." will be more specific and useful than generic labels.