|
Post by fughawzi on Dec 17, 2009 3:35:55 GMT
...that the only person on Chaos who ever thoroughly reads articles...How about limiting this to those partaking in the discussion? Just as a matter of principle... Shhh, let him compliment me! Jeez. I would have more to say if I didn't see this as strictly a basic starter study and if the results actually had any meaning. Until then, I'm strictly of the "Eh, whatever. People can do whatever they please no matter if it [Censored]s them up or not" mindset. Basically, don't care enough. I could get more into what you guys are arguing about.. Is fun a driving force or not, etc, but I have this nagging feeling you might hit me. So carry on, little cherubs! (PS, obviously people are going to look into [Censored]and tear it into a million pieces. That is what you do. Just because you think something is obvious doesn't make it so to the rest of the world. I'll repeat: The most important and useful studies are the ones that sound like everyday 'common' sense. Why wouldn't you completely vet an idea, even if it is just for kicks?)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 17, 2009 4:20:22 GMT
We don't hit, we just pout! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 17, 2009 11:29:57 GMT
Actually, I think the main thing I learned from the topic itself is that the only person on Chaos who ever thoroughly reads articles is Zee. The rest of us were treating it seriously, which is frankly embarrassing in retrospect... Like I've said earlier, I don't even have time to play computer games nowadays. So I've got myself a good excuse, so don't look at me! (PS, obviously people are going to look into [Censored]and tear it into a million pieces. That is what you do. Just because you think something is obvious doesn't make it so to the rest of the world. I'll repeat: The most important and useful studies are the ones that sound like everyday 'common' sense. Why wouldn't you completely vet an idea, even if it is just for kicks?) One major problem in psycology is that studies that don't find something significant don't get published. Apparently debunking theories isn't that interesting to psycology... Übereil
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Dec 17, 2009 21:36:22 GMT
Eh? Yes they are? They're quite frequently published, actually. Do you mean in media? They are usually published there as well, but with much added hysteria that it sometimes barely resembles the actual study findings.
Honestly, skim through a journal and see how many studies are earth shattering. It really depends on your definition.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 18, 2009 7:14:14 GMT
I'm not talking about earth shattering papers (those definently get published). I'm talking about "I did X and nothing significant was found" papers.
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Dec 18, 2009 7:24:19 GMT
Sometimes the fact that nothing significant happened is significant. Those studies definitely get published as well.
|
|