The Karl Popper in me says: Its barely useful science because its not falsifiable.

Its like a horoscope, it applies to everyone.

Its closer to a tautology "Its raining or its not" than a contradiction "Its raining and its not".

The closer to contradiction limits the possible realities, which makes it better science.

Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.

How is it not falsifiable? They found a correlation between susceptibility to bullshit and the result of a previously established cognitive tests.

> Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.

That's a terrible example of your point. As long as you can define a metric for "worse at their jobs" (it'll vary a ton based on which job we're talking about, but it still sounds like something you could assign a metric to) then you have a really clear and testable hypothesis.

It looks to me like they designed a test to measure someone’s susceptibility to corporate bullshit, and then administered tests that were correlated with job performance in other studies. If the results were not different on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If the people who scored higher with their bullshit scores did better on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If you disagree with the methodology then criticize that, but saying it’s not falsifiable is simply false.

> Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.

As long as you can define some measure of "worse at their jobs", which corporations routinely do, this seems like an easy thing to falsify.

Go get employee eval scores and poll everyone on whether they eat breakfast.