Instead of currently exercised “voodoo science” we should test the possibility of biological differences between sensitive and non-sensitive persons.
Instead of “voodoo science” we should test the possibility of biological differences between sensitive and non-sensitive persons. We should select measurements that will be minimally affected by the mood of the tested person. Measuring heart beat rate or blood pressure or itchiness/burning of skin are certainly not the most optimal tests because they can be severely affected by the experimental stress.
Taking samples of blood, saliva, urine or punch-biopsies of skin might be better source of material for further biological analyses using transcriptomics and proteomics that are becoming approaches of choice in toxicology, ecotoxicology and help in human health risk assessment.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Speaking of psychology and shooting oneself in the foot… maybe Dr. Rubin and colleagues are suffering from Dunning–Kruger syndrome?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Dariusz, great article, and you are absolutely right. It is astonishing how James Rubin, a psychologist by training, can conduct studies that are flawed, not powered at all to even address the questions he claims they do, and utterly useless to real professionals – yet he eventually publishes them. Clearly, he is completely unaware of his professional limitations, and he has no clue of what *real science* means. His studies are so flawed that no real scientist in *any* field would consider them; they are simply garbage. It’s pathetic that he either *is* unaware of his limitations, or possibly, his conflicts of interest stand in the way of his ability to judge things clearly.