Aside from the ridiculousness of reading anything malicious in an unordered comparison list…

In 2012, a great amount of priming research was thrown into doubt as part of the replication crisis. Many of the landmark studies that found effects of priming were unable to be replicated in new trials using the same mechanisms.[10] The experimenter effect may have allowed the people running the experiments to subtly influence them to reach the desired result, and publication bias tended to mean that shocking and positive results were seen as interesting and more likely to be published than studies that failed to show any effect of priming. The result is that the efficacy of priming may have been greatly overstated in earlier literature, or have been entirely illusory.[11][12]