When will psychology finally be recognized as a pseudoscience?

[John 6IX Breezy]

In regard to the paper on cultural differences in memory, what actual methods were used? What data was collected to test which hypotheses? I can see the *topic* being very interesting, although close to impossible to collect the relevant data.

I linked to the full paper above. And including one of the studies referenced in the article: "Attending holistically versus analytically."

It would also take a team of hopefully multilingual researchers collecting and tabulating the data across several different cultures to a precision that I doubt anyone can yet do in any single culture as yet.

Right, that's what psychologists are trained in. For example, in the "attending holistically vs analytically" study there were two researchers: Takahiko Masuda (Japanese) and Richard Nisbett (American). And their study contrasted recognition in American and Japanese participants.

Given the scale of the described article, it is NOWHERE close to being able to even start to address the relevant issues *unless* it is picking up from another large scale study that covers that material.

Yes, review articles are building on many other studies, such as the "attending holistically vs analytically" paper.

However, to be clear, a study only has to be as large as it needs to be so that it is adequately powered. Power refers to the probability that a study will give statistically significant results. And things like sample size, effect size, and significance level affect the power of a study. I say that because you seem to imply that only studies with the largest of scales will suffice, but psychologists already have ways of calculating how large the study needs to be.