[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/phile/ - For those who think young.

Show some <18 love.

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


8chan works properly again now, so post away!

File: 1455421337824.png (169.85 KB, 889x620, 889:620, rind et al.png)

16f989 No.5573

I know some people complain about Rind et al. saying its methodology wasn't very scientific. What stops people from correcting those flaws and making a new article?

000000 No.5582

Simple, no psychological study can ever be truly considered scientific because for a study in general to be considered scientific, it must be repeatable. Whenever psychological studies in particular are repeated, they usually get wildly different results, simply due to the fact that psychology is based on anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Many of the complaints about how Rind et al. is not scientific are complaints that would be fair to make about any psychological study. Psychologists simply ignore those issues for the majority of studies (or they would be out of a job) and point out those issues only when they really really don't like the results of that study.

Additionally Bruce Rind's career has truly been ruined by publishing this study. No other psychologist is going to see what happened to him, copy his study, and risk having to publish results that support Rind et al.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]