Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, that's to be expected. We've all guffawed at information that we find objectionable. But I think the primary difference between you and me is that, I'd rather learn than pretend I don't need to. I don't have a narcissistic outlook in which I determine the absolute truths of the world using my own anecdotal yardstick. But for you, if you haven't seen it, if it's not true for you, then it's not true for the rest of the world.
Just an FYI, the article you posted didn't prove that any of the items on that list are factual. Citing a single study on an issue is grounds for saying "hmm, this is interesting" but not grounds for saying "This is true".
Also worth noting that a lot of those experiments were done with young women, which isn't a sizable demographic on this forum.
Sure, that's to be expected. We've all guffawed at information that we find objectionable. But I think the primary difference between you and me is that, I'd rather learn than pretend I don't need to. I don't have a narcissistic outlook in which I determine the absolute truths of the world using my own anecdotal yardstick. But for you, if you haven't seen it, if it's not true for you, then it's not true for the rest of the world.
How does learning work for you? You seem to be talking to yourself here, because in the face of all reason, you continue on with your premise of the moment.
Whomever did this study, as you call it, had an interesting random sample of pretty shamelessly base and materialistic people. Ive seen guys on OLD sites posing with their Harleys (the motorcycle equivalent of a Bentley for most enthusiasts), and even Ferrari's and Lamborghini's. The mere fact they sent me a message on my totally abandoned profile would tend to blow the hypothesis of the study you are fixated with right out of the water.
For whatever reason, posing with an iconic image that projects wealth or a particular status obviously has not worked on either girls or women, and isn't working on the faceless profile that is mine.
You could learn something from that, like how to choose more meaningful studies.
P.S. I would add to that that many have messaged me posing with their yachts and planes too.
I never claimed that. My assertion is that scientific research cannot be disproved using anecdotal evidence.
If scientific research is recording the response of a sample base of people, then I guess we're doing scientific research right here. So far this scientific research is cancelling out the scientific research you're trying to confuse with the definition of fact.
If scientific research is recording the response of a sample base of people, then I guess we're doing scientific research right here. So far this scientific research is cancelling out the scientific research you're trying to confuse with the definition of fact.
Well, what we're doing is not scientific as we're not adhering to the scientific method, which is the standard. It's ok to reject a hypothesis, but if you're going to a reject or disprove a scientific hypothesis, it has to be done using the same system. For example: Darwin's theory of evolution. He presented a hypothesis based upon his observations and research. It doesn't make his theory true, it simply means it's there and it's viable in the context of science. To disprove the theory we need to use the same scientific method. We haven't done that. So, the theory of evolution remains viable. We cannot disprove the theory by saying "well, I haven't seen a 'this' turn into 'this' therefore the theory is false.
Well, what we're doing is not scientific as we're not adhering to the scientific method, which is the standard. It's ok to reject a hypothesis, but if you're going to a reject or disprove a scientific hypothesis, it has to be done using the same system. For example: Darwin's theory of evolution. He presented a hypothesis based upon his observations and research. It doesn't make his theory true, it simply means it's there and it's viable in the context of science. To disprove the theory we need to use the same scientific method. We haven't done that. So, the theory of evolution remains viable. We cannot disprove the theory by saying "well, I haven't seen a 'this' turn into 'this' therefore the theory is false.
You're not a very good scientist if you use theory and hypothesis interchangeably.
Evolution is a theory. "Women are attracted to men with nice cars" is a hypothesis.
We're disputing the implication that the evidence is sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions.
I've been responding to people who have called the research wrong and nonsense based upon their own personal experience. We haven't really touched on how relevant it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
