That last percent really does make a world of difference

Is there a source I can read for this

Or we are simply better at diagnosing eye issues and people are more aware of them and have better access to them

The New 3DS had the head tracking thing so that way the 3D would adjust to your position. I’m sure this is more advanced, but it did become a thing in the later model.

Could something like this be used to overcome the uncertainty principle?

I’m gonna be real with you here. I think you might be mistaken with that one. Just thinking about it for a few seconds raises lots of questions such as where do those old atoms go, why are atoms breaking their bonds where they don’t need to, why wouldn’t we have completely new memories and everything, what about cells that stay with you your whole life.

The list just goes on

Honestly that’s very wholesome

Literally just look into the homophily principle as I stated. Maybe I should’ve mentioned that in the TL:DR. But that one has several countries and differing types of social circles it’s been studied in.

Another classic in my field is Granovetters “strength of weak ties”. It’s a classic but a little dated and was foundational for SNA. Brashears “The weakness of tie strength” modernized the theory and strengthened it. Those two studies and those related to them will cite multiple studies finding similar things.

Honestly your question is so easy to answer it leads me to believe that you’re likely parroting something some physics bro told you, but never actually looked into it yourself.

There are plenty of studies that are replicable and plenty that don’t rely on self reporting as well

As for self reporting, yes people lie, which is why we formulate questions and interview types that lead to less lies. However some studies are by definition going to need self reporting and that self reporting is literally what makes the most sense

I’ll give you an example of what I do. I’m in the field of Social Network Analysis. We blend together various methods and fields from neuroscience, to psychology, to graph theory, and more. We try to analyze the characteristics and behaviors of social networks and it’s different types and we are able to do so using things like math. However, when we want to see who all is in someone’s social networks, we can either observe them or just ask them. So usually the first person they’ll name is their wife and maybe their kids and what not and we can work with this data. There’s little to no reason to believe they’d lie about that and studies have shown that in some regards they don’t. Hell it’s quite funny because we will get brutally honest answers on anonymous surveys were people will mention their spouse, but also the person they’re having an affair with.

The underlying driver in social networks is that of the homophily principle. To sum it up, think birds of a feather flock together. You are more likely to marry, be friends with, get along with, etc people who have similar interests and appearances to your own. This may sound like common sense but for a long time people assumed that “oppposites attract”

This principle holds true in literally every single society we have studied ever. Even primitive societies hold true to this. My favorite explanation for this is that there’s less cognitive work involved in meeting similar people and thus you’re able to move through beginning stages of a relationship much sooner. So for instance, if you were an expert in this area like I am, this whole comment would be for nothing and we could discuss finer social network theories such as Blau space or information heuristics.

SNA is the backbone behind many things such as terrorist intelligence gathering, networks, and logistics, as well as other covert Social Networks. It’s also used in neuroscience when studying social information that is stored, as well as in emergency response protocols.

TL:DR we are trained scientists just like any other. We are aware of the foundations of science, it’s limits, and societies limits, and employ tricks to get around such things. You are mistaken with self reporting as research shows people get extremely honest with anonymous surveys. I’m not mad, but there’s enough misinformation about social science as is and how rigorous it is. In cross disciplinary meetings, more often than not it’s my lab that has to remind other scientists of some of the basics, simply because we have to be the most careful out of most disciplines.

As a social scientist myself, what makes you say that?

All of what you said is true but I said any Apple tech, not specifically phones. I worked for a while in retail and repair electronics and can tell you that plenty of Apple headphones were regularly being brought back in within a year or people mentioning them going out and having to buy new ones.

No but show me how a beyer behaves after 10 years next to how any apple product behaves after 10 years