The contrast between William James's broad, introspective "Stream of Thought" and the hyper-specific "Batman Effect" study reflects a trend in academia. Professional pressures for publishable, empirical results favor narrow, methodologically rigorous studies over grand, philosophical inquiries that are harder to test.

The "Batman Effect" study's choice of a superhero to test a "disruption" hypothesis introduces a glaring confound (priming heroism). This may be a deliberate strategy to create ambiguity, ensuring a stream of follow-up studies is needed to disentangle the effects, thus building a literature.

Fields like economics become ineffective when they prioritize conforming to disciplinary norms—like mathematical modeling—over solving complex, real-world problems. This professionalization creates monocultures where researchers focus on what is publishable within their field's narrow framework, rather than collaborating across disciplines to generate useful knowledge for issues like prison reform.

Work by Kahneman and Tversky shows how human psychology deviates from rational choice theory. However, the deeper issue isn't our failure to adhere to the model, but that the model itself is a terrible guide for making meaningful decisions. The goal should not be to become a better calculator.

Critics argue moral thought experiments are too unrealistic to be useful. However, their artificiality is a deliberate design choice. By stripping away real-world complexities and extraneous factors, philosophers can focus on whether a single, specific variable is the one making a moral difference in our judgment.

The public appetite for surprising, "Freakonomics-style" insights creates a powerful incentive for researchers to generate headline-grabbing findings. This pressure can lead to data manipulation and shoddy science, contributing to the replication crisis in social sciences as researchers chase fame and book deals.

When complex entities like universities are judged by simplified rankings (e.g., U.S. News), they learn to manipulate the specific inputs to the ranking formula. This optimizes their score without necessarily making them better institutions, substituting genuine improvement for the appearance of it.

An intuitive finding (swearing improves strength) is undermined by its proposed mechanism, "state disinhibition," which the hosts critique as meaningless jargon. This highlights a common flaw where psychology papers invent complex, unprovable explanations for simple observations.

Munger argued that academic psychology missed the most critical pattern: real-world irrationality stems from multiple psychological tendencies combining and reinforcing each other. This "Lollapalooza effect," not a single bias, explains extreme outcomes like the Milgram experiment and major business disasters.