My only responses, since I am no longer interested in continuing this conversation, are firstly that you were in error when you leapt from "less-conscious" to "instinct is more effective than training." What you call "instinct," according to the reporting on the study (I can't access it any more than you can), can actually be trained. What is in error is not training, but our socially-constructed ideas of what things are "tells" and what aren't. Humans are in fact able to refine our skills at detecting deception, but in order to do so we must unlearn the bad and inaccurate lessons taught to us by society (e.g. that eye contact breaking alone is a tell) and instead apply a mix of effective analysis techniques (such as establishing a baseline for a given person before beginning to look at their responses that are in question) and actually using and refining intuition/"instinct."
Secondly, I can't say I'm surprised to see you completely dismiss the entire social sciences field out of hand simply because it isn't physics. As a physics guy myself, I find that academic chauvinism incredibly frustrating, counterproductive, and (oftentimes) hypocritical. Ever heard, for example, of the pentaquark issue, where physicists confidently reported that they'd discovered pentaquark matter, only to then find they were in error...which causes the entire subfield of pentaquark studies to become a pariah, with almost no one doing any research into it due to the stigma of one group having a replication failure? Or how about the Bogdanov affair, where two French physicists/mathematicians (or should I say "physicists"...) published a series of papers purporting to describe the physical theory of the pre-Big Bang universe, but their peer-reviewed and published papers were found to be stating actual nonsense and otherwise seriously flawed enough that even a casual analysis by physicists of other specific foci could see the absurdities right away, and the brothers' PhDs were found to have been built on similarly questionable grounds.
And, I just want to be clear, I say this as someone trained in and loving physics. Physics is what I want to dedicate my professional life to. But this "eww, social science...gross..." attitude is unhelpful at best and actively trying to reduce human knowledge at worst. Yes, there are problems, and yes, those problems are significant and need to be addressed. Treating that as a reason to dismiss an entire field is foolish. Keep in mind that the "common sense" theory of light from literally just a century and a half ago was almost totally wrong, despite being widely accepted by the physics community. The caloric fluid theory of heat held sway for ages despite having provable flaws. We knew Newton's laws were failing us long before Einstein gave us relativity, and even when he did, the suggestion that Newton might be wrong was scandalous for a time. Continental drift and meteor impact as an explanation for cratering were considered ridiculous for most of the 20th century, yet they are now such solid parts of geology and astrophysics that to question them would be practically unthinkable. Fields develop over time. Psychology, and other related social sciences, has only been even remotely a formal science for perhaps 150 years. What errors were common two thousand year ago when Aristotle began writing the Physics?
But yeah. I'm done. You're clearly not interested in using equitable standards of argument, so there's no point in further discussion.
