That is not true - there are techniques (mostly qualitative) to accomplish that but even to go further to challenge the R's on a number of points to elicit their responses to situations they have not enounter but may encounter (Touraine used that in his social movement research and called it 'sociological intervention"), there are interviewing techniques, there is introspection.
So I do not see it as a cul de sac.
A more general point is that this society is trully infatuated with testing - it is an article of faith for many that answering a few multiple choice questions or administering an experiment will open the door to the human soul. That is probably the most naive, arrogant, and dangerous aspect of US intellectualism (see Stephen Jay Gould, _The Mismeasure of Man_ for more). All what those tests show is how well people take those tests.
As to the publicity stunt thing - so what exactly was the empirical hypothesis those experiments were testing? Or were they more of a high brow 60-minutes variety, a journalist posing as someone else to discover some dirty secrets?
>are you driving around a cul-de-sac or what?
>
>> Trust me on that, I
>>am a doctor.
>
>
>wow! i seriously hope you're joking, cause if you're not this is truly and
>deliciously hilarious as the last line in an exchange of milgram and
>authority.
No, I'm dead serious ;).
(sheesh - what is it with those lefties nowadays, can't even tell sarcasm from a literal claim - or is it a strange way of appreciating my sense of humor?)
smooches (as you say it)
wojtek