Oh man, I get so bothered when someone presents interesting data - only to append a theory that isn't connected to it.
Why is that? Don't you get to publish unless you have a theory, no matter how unrelated an implausible it is?
Human sciences especially - it's understandable though, as it's hard to read people's minds.
Neurons firing? Really?? Does fantasizing about objects we can actually see and touch suddenly make it science?
If the study included brains scans or something, sure. But all they did was look at numbers.
If you don't have a theory that's related to your study, just post your data and spare us your fantasies. Thank you.