I accept your argument from the perspective that it would allow social scientists/other interested individuals to assess new data in an easy framework. But, I don't think it would change the political problem that the author is describing.
Some (admittedly weak) examples illustrate this point: despite our knowledge of physics and our exploitation of this knowledge in the form of aircraft and rockets, flat-earth believers and those who don't believe/understand acceleration abound.
We know the mechanisms by which vaccines work - and could go observe the diseases they prevent by simply taking a trip, or reviewing public health data from different countries. But, anti-vaccine belief is also increasing.
There are many more of these stories, where the 'easy' idea beats out the well-established scientific consensus. Thus, I'm not sure that a fundamental understanding of how influence/addiction/personality work would change political support for these ineffective programs.
Flat earthers have zero influence on the development of physics, and their ideas don't matter to anyone except themselves and a few opportunistic journalists.
This is not true in the social sciences where it's very hard to do physics-grade research, especially given that the social sciences are very politicised, and research is often done to prove a political or moral point.
So in practice our understanding of personal and social/political psychology is pre-Copernican. There's a lot of moralising - which you will agree or disagree with, depending on your predisposition - but very little high quality research into the way that moral and political decisions are made individually and collectively.
We're left with a mythology of free objective democratic choice in politics which is clearly naive and reliably breeds monsters, but as yet there isn't a better model of choice to replace it.
I agree with your point - as mentioned in my first line, I state that such a comprehensive model would be very helpful for academic purposes.
I don't believe that it would change popular opinion - indeed, flat-earthers and other 'anti-intellectual' fads continue despite not being accepted by serious researchers.
Some (admittedly weak) examples illustrate this point: despite our knowledge of physics and our exploitation of this knowledge in the form of aircraft and rockets, flat-earth believers and those who don't believe/understand acceleration abound.
We know the mechanisms by which vaccines work - and could go observe the diseases they prevent by simply taking a trip, or reviewing public health data from different countries. But, anti-vaccine belief is also increasing.
There are many more of these stories, where the 'easy' idea beats out the well-established scientific consensus. Thus, I'm not sure that a fundamental understanding of how influence/addiction/personality work would change political support for these ineffective programs.