Note: the post talks about priming research. I made the following comment there:

The research on walking slower was not reproduced in a double-blind study; so they tried to reproduce it with a non-double-blind study and succeeded. In other words, the evidence suggests it was purely a matter of experimenter expectations, not the old-associated words at all.

This doesn’t invalidate your conclusions, but I just wanted to let you know.

In general, a lot of research on priming is statistically dubious. There are a few robust findings, but there's also a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up under closer examination.