A ti misliš da socijalnu studiju o internetskim trolovima treba sprovoditi... gdje? Među indijskim kućanicama i eskimskim lovcima na tuljane? Ili da oni neće, ako od rođenja budu u istim takvim uvjetima tih "weirdoa", pokazivati slično ponašanje?nodens wrote: ↑16 May 2017, 10:54Još jedan citat na taj konto:
Psychologists claim to speak of human nature, the study argues, but they have mostly been telling us about a group of WEIRD outliers, as the study calls them — Westernized, educated people from industrialized, rich democracies.
According to the study, 68 percent of research subjects in a sample of hundreds of studies in leading psychology journals came from the United States, and 96 percent from Western industrialized nations. Of the American subjects, 67 percent were undergraduates studying psychology — making a randomly selected American undergraduate 4,000 times likelier to be a subject than a random non-Westerner.
Western psychologists routinely generalize about “human” traits from data on this slender subpopulation, and psychologists elsewhere cite these papers as evidence.
New York Times
nodens wrote: ↑15 May 2017, 16:10Harame, samo kratko: you're damn right da 'podcjenjujem' tu znanost. Ali ne, to nije 'neutemeljeno'. Bacider samo pogled na wiki, pogotovo ovaj odlomak o socijalnoj psihologiji.:
Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as common in the field.[13] Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome. Examples of QRPs include selective reporting or partial publication of data (reporting only some of the study conditions or collected dependent measures in a publication), optional stopping (choosing when to stop data collection, often based on statistical significance of tests), p-value rounding (rounding p-values down to .05 to suggest statistical significance), file drawer effect (nonpublication of data), post-hoc storytelling (framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory analyses), and manipulation of outliers (either removing outliers or leaving outliers in a dataset to cause a statistical test to be significant).[13][14][15][16] A survey of over 2,000 psychologists indicated that a majority of respondents admitted to using at least one QRP.[13] False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field, requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers.[17]
Praktički skoro sve što je ovaj lik pobrojao da spada u nine circles of scientific hell
Kad mi se to 'znanstveno' polje još pača u etiku, a o filozofiji očito kurca ne kuži (jer valjda previše vremena troše na 'znanstvena' istraživanja, recimo to gore o internet trolovima, kako korisno i nadasve znanstveno) - dobijem ospice. Get the fuck outta here.
Evo ti još malo: Are Most Published Social Psychology Findings False?
Kakvo faking "pačanje u etiku i filozofiju"? Hoćeš reći da su narcizam, psihopatija, makijavelizam i sadizam čisto filozofske kategorije? Da se ne mogu detektirati u socijalnim interakcijama?
Naravno da je teško replicirati rezultate masovnih studija, jer su u svakom ispitivanju novi subjekti koji sa sve većim detaljiziranjem odudaraju jedni od drugih. Ali postoje svima zajedničke zone, koje su promjenjive u dopuštenim statističkim granicama da bi se zadovoljavajuće mogla determinirati jedna opća slika, kao i u svim masovnim antropološkim statistikama.
Znači procjenjivanje nečijeg karaktera tebi je pseudo-znanost? I svi oni psiho-testovi ne mogu otkriti je li netko podoban za vatrogasca, policajca, paramedika, odgajateljicu u vrtiću, pilota, astronauta...nodens wrote: ↑15 May 2017, 16:10Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
Ovo zadnje nema strogo veze baš s pitanjem trolova kao takvih, ali čisto malo da vidiš odakle meni to 'neutemeljeno' podcjenjivanje dotične (pseudo ) 'znanosti'.
Aj ti malo detektiraj šta je zapravo uvažena doktorica napisala, pa da mi počnemo suvislije razgovarati. Trolanje je simptom, ne nečija karakterna osobina. I kašalj je simptom upale pluća, ali ju ostali testovi potvrđuju.nodens wrote: ↑15 May 2017, 16:10A konkretno:
Tko je govorio o takvima? Ja kao prvo nemam pojma postoje li ljudi koji doslovno 'sve vrijeme, sve ljude' konstantno trolaju. Kako se to uopće može detektirati (da netko baš STALNO trola, a ne, recimo, samo 50% vremena, ili samo 80% vremena, LOL)? Kako je to uvažena doktorica detektirala?
Ja govorim o 'trolanju' kao o postupku, a ne o nekakvim fantomskim 'trolovima' koji valjda ne znaju ništa raditi osim konstantno trolati. Ti potonji meni uostalom zvuče kao mitska bića, no, nisam se baš time bavio tako da dopuštam čak i mogućnost da doktorica govori nešto suvislo. Iako bi me iznenadilo.
They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite Internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among Internet trolls, see this figure from the paper...
... the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.
A konkretno se socijalna psihologija osim anketama služi i nekim drugim tehnikama pa ako je tebi zaključivanje na bazi otkrića pomoću novih tehnika skeniranja u neurologiji i genetici pseudoznanstveno...:
A new study by researchers at Aalto University and the University of Oxford takes sharp aim at the limited scope of such studies, noting that the overemphasis on oxytocin tends to mask the social importance of dopamine and endorphins. They have published the results of their study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers collected genetic data from 757 people who also completed self-report questionnaires on mobile devices. The surveys included the EQ scale and the Experiences of Close Relationships Scale.
...
Summarizing some of the findings, the researchers noted these strong associations:
- Testosterone and β-endorphin were strongly associated with disposition.
- Oxytocin and dopamine were strongly associated with dyadic relationships.
- β-endorphin was found to influence dyadic relationships, though to a lesser degree.
- Dopamine and serotonin had the strongest associations with wider social networks.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05- ... izing.html
https://psychcentral.com/lib/types-of-b ... echniques/
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/psychology ... inimaging/
This Is Your Brain on Politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opini ... edman.html
Jel bolje 'vako, Riona?