It would probably focus on measuring the degree to which individuals differ, assigning explanatory variables, and figuring out the theoretical maximum (as brain chemistry sets a pretty hard limit). But that doesn't really matter, because we know that people can very easily be generalized - there is an entire industry devoted to it: advertising. Many years ago I had to design a process to pre-stage inventory based on expected demand - using historical data from a fairly inelastic customer base. It was spooky how accurately a Poisson distribution could predict long tailed events - but only after segmenting the customer base into something like 5 groups. This was for millions of people - 5 groups.

Makes sense for consumer behavior since there are a finite set of purchase choices. Things like ethics and behavior choices are fuzzy though…

> behavior choices

I really wish this weren't the case, but "choice" isn't a thing - as far as anyone can tell. All the complexity on display in the world appears to be a result of feedback loops, it really doesn't take much to generate a continuous low interval stream of pseudo random feedback - predictable after enough observation. People who regularly purchase chunky peanut butter and cat litter have a significantly higher probability of driving a VW bug. That isn't the result of limited alternatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear-feedback_shift_register