Original sentence: Some have called for proof of concept  applications that are publicly available for analysis
Edited sentence: A test would be simple, really, if it looked for objective results rather than causes of those results (a "psychology of programming" whatever that might be).But critics have said: Let's be realistic.If one is trained in a particular discipline, and makes one's living off it, one is inclined to rather vigorously defend that paradigm.Just test real-world problem-solving.No, just give the same programming tasks to OOP and non-OOP programmers, and see what happens.OOP has many followers, but so did phrenology, astrology, and lots of other fads to which the intelligentsia swore allegiance--for decades, even centuries.One or two people have called for proof of concept  applications that are publicly available for analysis.Research need not deal with mindsets, psychology, or thought processes.Some critics even compare OOP to group-think at best, collective hysteria at worst.That's backward, some will say (testing for causation rather than results).These kinds of pseudo-intellectual fashions come and go throughout history