Male 'devil effect'

[Xpendable]

LOL, this is hardly evidence.

Well of course this specific study is practically useless. My point is:

Would you also refuse to believe a study, even when the sample rate, methods and results are a lot more determinant?

 

[TheRealCallie]

LOL, this is hardly evidence.

Well of course this specific study is practically useless. My point is:

Would you also refuse to believe a study, even when the sample rate, methods and results are a lot more determinant?

That would depend on what it was about. If it was about something like this....yes, I'd toss that **** out the window.

Stop comparing this **** to where the Earth is in the universe and other major medical studies...completely different ball parks.

 

[SofiasMami]

I believe what Nilla is saying is that she will continue to think for HERSELF, not what other people tell her to think....

I think that's a misunderstanding. It's not the scientist who say what you should believe, its the evidence they find while experimenting. I'm sure the Catholic Church thought that Galileo want them to think the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but it wasn't Galileo who decided that; it was the precise mathematics and astronomic observation what gave him his theory. He didn't want to impose a belief, he was just presenting evidence.

LOL, this is hardly evidence.

Slightly off topic (sorry, ardour) and I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this but, Callie, it seems like you are only too ready jump in and browbeat and YELL at people with your opinions. I've read a good number of posts by you over time that I agree with but the beating down of other people is a huge turnoff.

-Teresa

 

[TheRealCallie]

I believe what Nilla is saying is that she will continue to think for HERSELF, not what other people tell her to think....

I think that's a misunderstanding. It's not the scientist who say what you should believe, its the evidence they find while experimenting. I'm sure the Catholic Church thought that Galileo want them to think the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but it wasn't Galileo who decided that; it was the precise mathematics and astronomic observation what gave him his theory. He didn't want to impose a belief, he was just presenting evidence.

LOL, this is hardly evidence.

Slightly off topic (sorry, ardour) and I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this but, Callie, it seems like you are only too ready jump in and browbeat and YELL at people with your opinions. I've read a good number of posts by you over time that I agree with but the beating down of other people is a huge turnoff.

-Teresa

And maybe you need reread what went on in this thread and who actually said what instead of getting on my ***. :rolleyes2:

Also, I wasn't aware I was trying to turn you or anyone else on....

 

[Xpendable]

That would depend on what it was about. If it was about something like this....yes, I'd toss that **** out the window.

Why? Social studies are impossible to prove?

Stop comparing this **** to where the Earth is in the universe and other major medical studies...completely different ball parks.

My english isn't too good but here it goes:

I've never compared the significance and complexity of this studies as if they were in the same calibre. Nor I compared the methods or results with the same criteria to make them seem equally valid.
What I tried to do was to point out how the scientific method determines the validity of the evidence presented by experimentation. There's many social studies that have been done thoroughly and with great precision. Taking various decades of experimentation to achieve a conclusion. For me is not the thematic of the study what determines its validity, but the amount of work and thoughtfulness they have. This study in particular doesn't have that. Doesn't mean that a similar study in the future can't be done more properly.

 

[VanillaCreme]

It probably is validation for some people. But I personally think it's a bunch of crap. There's no study that could ever be conducted on this planet that could ever make me think something about people just because the study said so. No doubt it may give a different perspective, but that doesn't lessen the fact that I think it's garbage.

Well then...

Why are you highlighting things that don't add anything? Yes, I think. I'm allowed to think it's garbage. I'm never going to allow anyone, much less 170 people I don't know, to ever determine anything for me. Maybe you need that, but some of us don't.

I believe what Nilla is saying is that she will continue to think for HERSELF, not what other people tell her to think....

I think that's a misunderstanding. It's not the scientist who says what you should believe, its the evidence they find while experimenting. I'm sure the Catholic Church thought that Galileo want them to think the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but it wasn't Galileo who decided that; it was the precise mathematics and astronomic observation what gave him his theory. He didn't want to impose a belief, he was just presenting evidence.

Once again, this is completely different than a group of women saying that a guy's face may or may not be ugly. I love how you're comparing things that do or would matter to something that doesn't. Real scientific of you.

Would you also refuse to believe a study, even when the sample rate, methods and results are a lot more determinant?

Depending on what the study is, yes. Why would I believe every study out there for no good reason? Other women saying a guy isn't attractive doesn't matter to me. What do I care what they say? You're trying to contort what I'm saying. I'm not saying study and research don't matter. I'm saying that this particular one doesn't hold any weight with me. Do you not understand what I'm saying, or are you just too stubborn to accept that other people won't think exactly as you do?

I'm never going to care what random women say about men. Period.

 

[Xpendable]

Once again, this is completely different than a group of women saying that a guy's face may or may not be ugly. I love how you're comparing things that do or would matter to something that doesn't. Real scientific of you.

I said:

My english isn't too good but here it goes:

I've never compared the significance and complexity of this studies as if they were in the same calibre. Nor I compared the methods or results with the same criteria to make them seem equally valid.
What I tried to do was to point out how the scientific method determines the validity of the evidence presented by experimentation. There's many social studies that have been done thoroughly and with great precision. Taking various decades of experimentation to achieve a conclusion. For me is not the thematic of the study what determines its validity, but the amount of work and thoughtfulness they have. This study in particular doesn't have that. Doesn't mean that a similar study in the future can't be done more properly.

Depending on what the study is, yes. Why would I believe every study out there for no good reason? Other women saying a guy isn't attractive doesn't matter to me. What do I care what they say? You're trying to contort what I'm saying. I'm not saying study and research don't matter. I'm saying that this particular one doesn't hold any weight with me. Do you not understand what I'm saying, or are you just too stubborn to accept that other people won't think exactly as you do?

Why you won't read my previous posts? I already said I also agree this study says nothing.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Why you won't read my previous posts? I already said I also agree this study says nothing.

Then why the hell are you defending it so much?

 

[VanillaCreme]

Why you won't read my previous posts? I already said I also agree this study says nothing.

Then what the **** are you arguing so hard for? I am right; You do just want to argue and disagree.

 

[Xpendable]

Then why the hell are you defending it so much?

Then what the **** are you arguing so hard for? I am right; You do just want to argue and disagree.

I'm not defending the study. I'm concerned that someone can choose to dismiss a study (about anything) just by its premise. You have said that there's nothing a study can do so you can accept its results. This goes beyond the "male devil" thematic.

 

[VanillaCreme]

I'm not defending the study. I'm concerned that someone can choose to dismiss a study (about anything) just by its premise. You have said that there's nothing a study can do so you can accept its results. This goes beyond the "male devil" thematic.

One - I'll dismiss what I choose. No one's going to tell me what's important to me.

Two - Dismissing something by it's premise? Isn't that why someone would dismiss something? There's a study about oranges. You don't like oranges. Would you still care about it? Anyone who doesn't care for something, they typically don't think about it. Yeah, I'm going to dismiss something that I think is crap. Why would I not dismiss it? And I said there's no study that could make me think something about people that I would believe just because the study said so. Why don't you read my posts before commenting, because you're clearly just trying to twist and maneuver words to fit what's going on in your mind.

You're not making any sense again. What logic is there in caring about something you don't care about?

 

[Xpendable]

One - I'll dismiss what I choose. No one's going to tell me what's important to me.

Not "one", but "it". The person is presenting the evidence, not an opinion. When science finds something it doesn't come out of nothing. Maybe the finding isn't important to you because you feel it doesn't apply to you. That doesn't mean the finding isn't true at some level.

Two - Dismissing something by it's premise? Isn't that why someone would dismiss something?

It should be dismissed if its answer is not true, not for just asking the question.

There's a study about oranges. You don't like oranges. Would you still care about it?Anyone who doesn't care for something, they typically don't think about it.

If I care or not is irrelevant. If the finding is true then there's nothing I can do.

Yeah, I'm going to dismiss something that I think is crap. Why would I not dismiss it?

But saying you think is crap is not the same as saying you don't care. Also, saying is crap to you is not enough to prove it wrong.

And I said there's no study that could make me think something about people that I would believe just because the study said so.

Even if the study is really well made?

Why don't you read my posts before commenting, because you're clearly just trying to twist and maneuver words to fit what's going on in your mind.

I re-read everyone's post many times because english isn't my first language. I think you're being pretty clear with your words. What happens is that I don't understand your reasoning, so when I try to clarify your phrases you get offended; because I point out fallacies you don't see.

You're not making any sense again. What logic is there in caring about something you don't care about?

The point is not if I care, but if it's true.

 

[VanillaCreme]

One - I'll dismiss what I choose. No one's going to tell me what's important to me.

Not "one", but "it". The person is presenting the evidence, not an opinion. When science finds something it doesn't come out of nothing. Maybe the finding isn't important to you because you feel it doesn't apply to you. That doesn't mean the finding isn't true at some level.

Scientific evidence is not 170 random college females. I don't know what school you ever went to, but they should teach the definition of evidence more clearly. Random people's opinions about a face is not evidence.

Two - Dismissing something by it's premise? Isn't that why someone would dismiss something?

It should be dismissed if its answer is not true, not for just asking the question.

It's not true for me. Dismissed.

And I said there's no study that could make me think something about people that I would believe just because the study said so.

Even if the study is really well made?

Yes, even if the study is well made. Because how well its done still doesn't mean it will matter to me.

Why don't you read my posts before commenting, because you're clearly just trying to twist and maneuver words to fit what's going on in your mind.

I re-read everyone's post many times because english isn't my first language. I think you're being pretty clear with your words. What happens is that I don't understand your reasoning, so when I try to clarify your phrases you get offended; because I point out fallacies you don't see.

Just because you don't understand my reasoning doesn't mean I don't have the right to think that way. You want to throw things at me as though they're fact, when in reality the study that this thread is topic of is purely people's opinions. It's fine if you don't understand my reasoning. But the second you want to start trying to change my mind is where you just won't win.

You're not making any sense again. What logic is there in caring about something you don't care about?

The point is not if I care, but if it's true.

But it's not true. Not the study this thread is about. Even if it were true, that still doesn't mean I have to care.

 

[Xpendable]

Scientific evidence is not 170 random college females. I don't know what school you ever went to, but they should teach the definition of evidence more clearly. Random people's opinions about a face is not evidence.

Forget the study, we are not talking about the study. Why you keep saying I'm trying to push the study? We already established we dismiss it. You cling to the idea of this particular study to discredit what I say. I'm talking about science in general.

It's not true for me. Dismissed.

That's not how it works. You can't choose not to believe in something just because you don't care. I mean you can, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Yes, even if the study is well made. Because how well its done still doesn't mean it will matter to me.

It doesn't matter you don't matter. I could not matter to you, you could be the only person in the world who doesn't matter. That means everyone else is wrong?

Just because you don't understand my reasoning doesn't mean I don't have the right to think that way. You want to throw things at me as though they're fact, when in reality the study that this thread is topic of is purely people's opinions. It's fine if you don't understand my reasoning. But the second you want to start trying to change my mind is where you just won't win.

"Forget the study, we are not talking about the study."

But it's not true. Not the study this thread is about. Even if it were true, that still doesn't mean I have to care.

But if it were true (which it isn't) it will be true regardless of you caring.


Good bye now. I'm going to sleep.
Would you agree this is a dead end? I don't think I can keep repeating myself and neither do you.

I would like to know what other users think about it.

 

[VanillaCreme]

I gave my thoughts on the topic of this thread, which was this particular study. You're the one bringing up irrelevant things.

 

[Xpendable]

I gave my thoughts on the topic of this thread, which was this particular study. You're the one bringing up irrelevant things.

Science denialism isn't irrelevant.


Good night.

 

[VanillaCreme]

There's zero science skill in the study that this thread is about. If you wanted to bring up other researches completely irrelevant to the study in this thread, then you create another thread with those. Why bring up other studies and then say forget about the study that's the topic of this thread? You continue to make no sense.

 

[ardour]

There's zero science skill in the study that this thread is about.

But on what basis can you make that claim? I don't know why anyone would bother continuing posting on a topic when their argument could be summed up as 'this doesn't appeal to my personal worldview, it's therefore invalid'. I mean you've already given that opinion.

There's plenty of material to back the concept of 'Lookism' as pervasive in society - attractiveness influences all sorts of assumptions about others, from income, intelligence, sociability, job competence, social status..

 

[VanillaCreme]

There's zero science skill in the study that this thread is about.

... on what basis can you make that claim? I don't know why anyone would bother continuing to posting on a topic when their argument seems to be, 'this doesn't appeal to my personal worldview, therefore it's invalid'. I mean you've already given that opinion.

There's plenty of material to back the concept of 'Lookism' as pervasive in society - attractiveness influences all sorts of assumptions about others, from income, intelligence, sociability, job competence, social status..

On what basis can you make the claim that there really is? It's not about being invalid because I just don't see it that way. It's about the fact of why would you allow anyone to tell you what's attractive and what isn't? Can you not make that decision on your own? Or do you need all these studies to tell you what you should like and what type of people would like you?

Attractiveness may make all the assumptions it wants. But I make my own decision on what's attractive to me. I don't need a study to do so for me.

 

[Xpendable]

Why bring up other studies and then say forget about the study that's the topic of this thread? You continue to make no sense.

Because you're denying science in general. The topic of the studies is secondary. If you just were denying this study it would be fine, but you're also denying the premises of what science means as a whole.

---

On what basis can you make the claim that there really is? It's not about being invalid because I just don't see it that way. It's about the fact of why would you allow anyone to tell you what's attractive and what isn't? Can you not make that decision on your own? Or do you need all these studies to tell you what you should like and what type of people would like you?

Attractiveness may make all the assumptions it wants. But I make my own decision on what's attractive to me. I don't need a study to do so for me.

No one is saying what you should believe.

Science doesn't dictate, it describes.

Scientists are not pushing agendas.

What you believe doesn't change evidence.

NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT TO BELIEVE

NO ONE IS MAKING THINGS UP

SCIENCE IS A REPRESENTATION, NOT AN IMPOSITION.

FOR THE LAST TIME:

Your ideas are completely disingenuous and dishonest. You have admitted you can't be convinced by evidence; doesn't matter how good. You're unable to separate or understand the idea of SCIENTIFIC DISCOVEREMENT with OPINION. You have no way of dealing with realities that challenge your own. You're delusional and willfully ignorant and you'll probably will continue repeating:

"Do you need studies to tell you what to believe?"

Doesn't matter how many time I say that that's NOT what studies are for.
That's not what they do and the fact you keep believing science doesn't apply to your opinions says you're beyond of accepting new ideas.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT BOTHER YOU.