Internet Trolls Are Horrible People

[Janx]

I don't think it qualifies as science.

it looked like somebody did a study. How is that not science?

Maybe it wasn't a perfect study? On what grounds was it not a proper study? What would make it a proper study?

is it possible for it to have been conducted correctly, yet reach a wrong conclusion?

basically, what's your beef? Everybody knows Trolls suck.

 

[Umbran]

It's a 'Psychology Today' article about a 'personality' study. I wouldn't put too much faith in the article or the study.

I don't think it qualifies as science.

The study was published in Personality and Individual Differences, which seems to be a peer reviewed psychological journal. So, I don't see what your problem is with the study. Did you happen to read it, and see that it's methodology was terribly flawed or something?

Or do you have a problem with psychology as a science, in general?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The study was published in Personality and Individual Differences, which seems to be a peer reviewed psychological journal. So, I don't see what your problem is with the study. Did you happen to read it, and see that it's methodology was terribly flawed or something?

Or do you have a problem with psychology as a science, in general?

A little bit of this, a little bit of that, but mostly this. I take particular issue with studies that rely this heavily on surveys, and statistical analysis of the survey responses. Psychologist have fallen into this terrible habit of thinking up a hypothesis, then going out and figuring out what statistical analysis to use to prove their hypothesis.

“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination.”

Andrew Lang

Unfortunately, a lot of psychologist play fast and loose with "science." I know, because I've worked on several studies. I've worked with some very good researchers. I've also seen the work that some researchers, which have a reputation for being good, have done, and it's underwhelming to say the least. One of the major weaknesses is the surveys.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

it looked like somebody did a study. How is that not science?

By not following the scientific method. Did this study follow it? I don't know; however, more often than not, psychologist running these personality studies tend to play a little fast and loose with the scientific method.

Maybe it wasn't a perfect study? On what grounds was it not a proper study? What would make it a proper study?

A perfect study? No such thing. There are always things that could have been done better. They could have made it a better study, though.

is it possible for it to have been conducted correctly, yet reach a wrong conclusion?

Yes.

basically, what's your beef?

I prefer chicken, actually.

Everybody knows Trolls suck.

I'm not disagreeing that trolls suck. The study, though, does more than just say "Trolls suck!"

 

[Umbran]

By not following the scientific method. Did this study follow it? I don't know;

So, you're telling us that somewhere, there are one or more people with PhDs in psychology who looked over the paper, and found it acceptable. You *haven't looked at it*, and found it unacceptable?

In effect, "I don't know anything about what these guys have done, but since I think pretty much everyone else who does studies does them poorly, I'll trash on this one, too!" ?

If that's the case... Well, you get to have an opinion, I suppose.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

So, you're telling us that somewhere, there are one or more people with PhDs in psychology who looked over the paper, and found it acceptable. You *haven't looked at it*, and found it unacceptable?

In effect, "I don't know anything about what these guys have done, but since I think pretty much everyone else who does studies does them poorly, I'll trash on this one, too!" ?

Actually, yes, a bunch of people with PhDs have looked at studies, found them acceptable, and were totally wrong. It happens. A PhD does not make one infallible. Just because it gets published in a peer reviewed journal does not mean it's a good study. Chances of it being good are probably better than a non-peer reviewed study, but it is not a certainty.

If that's the case... Well, you get to have an opinion, I suppose.

Oooh, snark. Very constructive. Since you've decided to start trolling, I'm going to go ahead and stop having this particular conversation with you.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, yes, a bunch of people with PhDs have looked at studies, found them acceptable, and were totally wrong. It happens. A PhD does not make one infallible. Just because it gets published in a peer reviewed journal does not mean it's a good study. Chances of it being good are probably better than a non-peer reviewed study, but it is not a certainty.

A PhD does not make one infallible. Nothing is certain in life. But, as a broad generalization, an informed opinion from a PhD in the subject is still probably more reliable than an uninformed opinion.

Since you've decided to start trolling, I'm going to go ahead and stop having this particular conversation with you.

I am not trolling - I'm not looking to get a rise out of you. I asked a question. I then noted that for one answer to that question, there wasn't then a whole lot to talk about.

You don't seem to be very even-handed. You can show that you think little of psychological studies. I can't show that I don't think uninformed opinions are worth discussing?

 

[Umbran]

Actually, yes, a bunch of people with PhDs have looked at studies, found them acceptable, and were totally wrong. It happens. A PhD does not make one infallible. Just because it gets published in a peer reviewed journal does not mean it's a good study. Chances of it being good are probably better than a non-peer reviewed study, but it is not a certainty.

A PhD does not make one infallible. Nothing is certain in life. But, as a broad generalization, an informed opinion from a PhD in the subject is still probably more reliable than an uninformed opinion.

Since you've decided to start trolling, I'm going to go ahead and stop having this particular conversation with you.

I am not trolling - I'm not looking to get a rise out of you. I asked a question. I then noted that for one answer to that question, there wasn't then a whole lot to talk about.

You don't seem to be very even-handed. You can show that you think little of psychological studies. I can't show that I don't think uninformed opinions are worth discussing?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

A PhD does not make one infallible. Nothing is certain in life. But, as a broad generalization, an informed opinion from a PhD in the subject is still probably more reliable than an uninformed opinion.

Well, you're getting an informed opinion from a PhD.

I am not trolling - I'm not looking to get a rise out of you. I asked a question. I then noted that for one answer to that question, there wasn't then a whole lot to talk about.

I see. So when you dismissively say

If that's the case... Well, you get to have an opinion, I suppose.

you aren't trolling? Well, then maybe you should take your own advice.

I just have to note - there's a lot of people who wind up in conflicts, not because they think differently, or are against the status quo, but because they cannot learn to express that different thinking without also expressing negative judgments about others. They're treated as trolls because they can't seem to build up their own ideas without tearing down others - and that is an issue.

You don't seem to be very even-handed. You can show that you think little of psychological studies. I can't show that I don't think uninformed opinions are worth discussing?

Well, considering that my PhD is in psychology, by your standards, that qualifies my opinion as pretty informed on this subject.

 

[frankthedm]

The study was published in Personality and Individual Differences, which seems to be a peer reviewed psychological journal.

I think this article sums up the value of Peer Reviewed

it's methodology was terribly flawed or something?

Yeah, they conducted internet surveys on trolls. Kinda stands to reason that the trolls would give trolling responses when given the opportunity.