> Having to use circumlocution like that—and thus making the meaning unclear—seems like an aspect of a Guess, or high-context, culture, doesn't it? ^_^

Ah ah :-)

Well, not really. Scientifically stating something doesn't exist is very bold, usually you can't formally do this. Your best way is to say "so far, we have no evidence of this existing".

Several studies or a meta analysis stating "we have no proof of this existing" is a strong hint towards this indeed not existing, usually that can't be for sure.

To prove something wrong usually you need a counter example, but in this stuff it's hard even imagining what's a counter example.

Generously, it could be that some relevant phenomenon does exist, but the studies are testing a hypothesis that is too strong or misaligned with the real phenomenon. Like, say, maybe the studies are attempting to show that people divide along these lines for all purposes, when the actual phenomenon only applies to matters of sufficient gravity; or maybe the studies are attempting to show that cultures divide along these lines, but actually individuals vary much more within cultures than between them. There's a million related hypotheses that you could try to parse, and finding that some of the strong ones are not supported by evidence is interesting but not evidence that the concepts aren't useful at some level.

Regardless of the above, it seems uncontroversial to say that some interactions have one or the other character -- and that it could sometimes be useful to name that character.