| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Request for peer reviewed articles | gold1991 | /r/MensRights | 12/09/13 03:59 AM |
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.And what about the massive amount of evidence of universal human characteristics? The consistent findings across cultures when dealing with persuasion? The heritability of psychological characteristics? I just find it funny that a group can advocate for the abolition of an academic field in one sentence, and then rally around more people (from that academic field, i.e. counseling psychology) for victims. Or look at the differences in suicide amongst men and boys and then say "too bad we can't st… | /r/MensRights | 17/03/14 12:20 PM |
| 2 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.Yes. It is behavioral -science-. I have a doctorate in psych. I know what it is. I also know that the research is applied so widely that anyone saying it isn't science is delusional. The effects speak for themselves. Look at Bandura's research in Africa that has had phenomenal influence on the prevalence and spread of AIDS. Look at...all of Cognitive Psych. Fuck look at the entire damned field. The fact that error factors into measurements more so than length or weight really means very little o… | /r/MensRights | 17/03/14 03:16 AM |
| 2 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.How can you say that psych isn't science when it is literally used in -everything- from job recruitment to getting people to recycle, to advertising. I have to say, that is pretty god damned ignorant. | /r/MensRights | 17/03/14 03:03 AM |
| -2 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.The measurement is a normative scale. Scores are relevant not in and of themselves, but in relation to experience and other places/studies. It has no true zero. It is similar to temperature, in that sense, as 45 degrees Celsius means little in and of itself without anchors and previous knowledge. A 5 on a self-esteem scale is relative to scale anchors and other participants that have taken the scale, I.e is normative, based upon normal levels | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 06:45 PM |
| -1 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.Here, I'll help ease your difficulties with quantifying subjective phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_test_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitrait-multimethod_matrix That is why subjective states are not only quantifiable, but also valid measurements. Read them. It is like three-quarters of science. | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 03:39 PM |
| 3 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.Being better at something does not necessarily mean one has higher self-esteem. For example, depressed people are far more accurate at describing things in their environment, and tend to be more accurate estimators of how well they did on any given task. They are, however, by definition lacking self-esteem. | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 02:31 PM |
| -2 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.Oh really? So someone's subjective well-being doesn't matter? What about when you compare an entire nations SWB to another's (as has been done)? Can that not tell you something about the state of life in those nations? Same premise here. To say "it's subjective, so it doesn't matter" is by definition disregarding science. It is literally the same thing as saying that someone's emotional or physical state doesn't matter because you cannot objectively quantify it (which you can, same as self-estee… | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 02:26 PM |
| 4 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.Statistically, you wouldn't see a huge difference in power for such a simple quasi-experiment past 150 or so participants total. You can find significance off of 50 per cell (100 total for this experiment). The 600 (or 3000 total) participants would be more than enough to test it, and statistically wouldn't make a huge difference, since you are comparing variances and means across groups. | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 01:13 PM |
| 2 | I saw this on the 'banbossy' website. I'd love to see the evidence for that.It's quantifiable in the same manner than any other psychological construct is quantifiable. Let me guess, you actively try to say that personality doesn't exist because you can't quantify it? What about your subjective well-being vs. another's? Pretty sure I've seen a subjective well-being post or 5 on this subreddit. Same methodology. Self-report measure on a normed, representative sample. If you are going to disregard science, at least do it equally. | /r/MensRights | 16/03/14 01:11 PM |
| 1 | Request for peer reviewed articlesPerfect! Thank you! | /r/MensRights | 12/09/13 01:04 PM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter