Thank you. Ariely started by describing chronostasis, the subjective temporal muddling of sensations. Then he dropped the "and one more thing" shtick to disclose this other experiment as externally validating the precognition. (À la Chiang's "What's expected of us" [1].)
He was suggesting to a lay audience the plausibility of superluminal causation on the basis of a single psychology experiment. That's not lying. But it's without scientific integrity.