The Friendship Recession? Social Circles are Shrinking

[Res Ipsa]

The most effective way to lie is to tell only part of the truth. You also said:

Conclusion - "The last section of an academic essay is the conclusion."

You guys know damn well what I meant, I never said that was the conclusion, I said it was "in the conclusion".

Jesus Christ!

There's that tell again. You're directing your frustration at the wrong person.

What are you quoting? Why are you talking about "academic essays" when we're discussing published journal articles? Something being a conclusion of a study is not a matter of the heading or where it is located in the article. In fact, conclusions are often stated up front, in the abstract. The issue is how they function.

You're in a box on this issue. If the reverse causation you referred to isn't a conclusion of the study, then the study adds nothing to the discussion other than an appearance that some authority supports what you are saying. Even if it were responsible to my initial comment, which it wasn't.

It's kind of ironic that you just said a few entries back that you aren't a mind reader, yet in this post you purport to read a bunch of people's minds.

Had you understood the paper, you also would have understood that it wasn't relevant to the comment to which you purported to reply, and not mentioned it at all.

[Res Ipsa]

No, that's not obvious at all. Especially when the article specifically discusses the difference between what people feel and what people report/say they feel. And your later phrasing shows that you DO understand the difference between feeling lonely and reporting that you feel lonely.

I was not very precise with my wording because the thread is not about gender studies. I was simply replying to the Marcus's childish comments.

And I didn't have to be very precise with my wording because the paper I shared does explain all of that.

Accusing me of not understanding the papers I share is a low blow. There's no need to make a big deal for my failure to mention the word "SAY"

Do you see how you are demanding that others be precise with their language but giving yourself a complete pass? The fact that we can all read the paper doesn't excuse you making false representations about the paper. Your excuse simply doesn't fly.

I really don't care how low a blow you think it is. You misrepresent the content of papers often enough that a conclusion that you aren't taking the time to read and understand what you are reading in context is entirely justified. And it's by far the most charitable conclusion that could be reached. The issue isn't failure to mention the word "say" -- it's a long-standing pattern that you continue to demonstrate in your posting.

I think Dr. Steuss was pretty perceptive in his comment. It looks very much like you are engaged in highly motivated reasoning, which leads you to misinterpret snippets you find in papers.

[doubtingthomas]

You're in a box on this issue. If the reverse causation you referred to isn't a conclusion of the study, then the study adds nothing to the discussion other than an appearance that some authority supports what you are saying.

But it may be the case according to the researchers. My comment doesn't contradict the paper.

True, but can it also be the other way around? Having no friend might lead to more computer gaming. Similar to what this paper points out in the conclusion. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 3121996854

[doubtingthomas]

Do you see how you are demanding that others be precise with their language but giving yourself a complete pass? The fact that we can all read the paper doesn't excuse you making false representations about the paper. Your excuse simply doesn't fly.

Okay, fine! But as I said, this is not a gender studies threads. Marcus is trying to derail the thread with childish comments.

I shouldn't be condemned for a quick reply.

[doubtingthomas]

I think Dr. Steuss was pretty perceptive in his comment. It looks very much like you are engaged in highly motivated reasoning, which leads you to misinterpret snippets you find in papers.

You may argue that my wording is not very precise, but I'm not misunderstanding the papers.

[Res Ipsa]

The last sentence, which is what you are referring to, doesn't talk about a study at all. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say I'm talking about a "different study." I'm not citing a study for the opinions I express, let alone one I treat like the "gospel truth."

Okay , I messed up there.

But can you admit that you messed up here?

The most effective way to lie is to tell only part of the truth. You also said:

What do you mean you "messed up?" What does that even mean? How did you get from what I actually said to your claim that I was referring to a "different study?" Were you just mad and lashed out? After being criticized for not understanding and responding to my actual comment, did you just double down and do it again? "I messed up" doesn't say anything about how you jumped to a false conclusion. How can you stop "messing up" if you don't examine what happened.

I haven't demanded that you "admit" anything, so I don't know where that last bit is coming from. This isn't the first bit of what we could charitably call historical revisionism that you've engaged in lately. The worst was falsely claiming that a thread you started was just about discussing juvenile diabetes after you changed your thread title and some of your posts. Cherry picking the most favorable appear post out of a several posts and claiming that's what you said isn't honest. Trying to gaslight people in a thread by changing stuff in it and then making false claims about what the thread is about isn't honest.

I don't think I messed up with that comment. I intended to get your attention. And I did.

[Res Ipsa]

You're in a box on this issue. If the reverse causation you referred to isn't a conclusion of the study, then the study adds nothing to the discussion other than an appearance that some authority supports what you are saying.

But it may be the case according to the researchers. My comment doesn't contradict the paper.

True, but can it also be the other way around? Having no friend might lead to more computer gaming. Similar to what this paper points out in the conclusion. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 3121996854

No, you're still demonstrating either that you don't understand the paper or you don't understand what it means for something to be relevant to something else. The paper discusses a different subject and a different causal chain than I suggested in my comment. It's not a conclusion they reached from evidence -- its an acknowledgment that they were measuring correlations and did not attempt to address causation. Yet you keep treating the fact that it was said by "researchers" in a published paper makes the sentence somehow authoritative when it comes to the causal chain I suggested. It doesn't. Referring at all to the study is complete non-sequitur. Not only that the reverse causation you mentioned doesn't even correctly refer to either my suggested chain or the papers. I said nothing about more computer gaming. The paper says nothing about "having no friend."

You can keep doubling and tripling down all you want, but you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Are you ever going to get to making an actual, substantive response to my comment?

[Res Ipsa]

Do you see how you are demanding that others be precise with their language but giving yourself a complete pass? The fact that we can all read the paper doesn't excuse you making false representations about the paper. Your excuse simply doesn't fly.

Okay, fine! But as I said, this is not a gender studies threads. Marcus is trying to derail the thread with childish comments.

I shouldn't be condemned for a quick reply.

What does "okay, fine" mean? Do you recognize that you in such a hurry to respond that you can't keep the conversation straight -- can't keep your own posts straight -- can't take consistent positions?

I'll go over the derail rule and scope of threads because people forget how this works. Marcus makes a post. If you are the thread starter, you have a choice. You can click the report button and report the post as a derail. Or you can respond to post. But, as the thread starter, if you respond you've expanded the scope of the thread to include whatever you are responding to. If anyone else follows a derail, their posts will be moved as part of the derail. But if you're the thread starter and you follow the derail, it's no longer a derail -- it's part of the topic. That's what we mean when we say that a thread starter cannot derail their own thread.

But beyond that, Marcus is not responsible for you being inconsistent in terms of what you demand from others and what you do yourself.

[Res Ipsa]

I think Dr. Steuss was pretty perceptive in his comment. It looks very much like you are engaged in highly motivated reasoning, which leads you to misinterpret snippets you find in papers.

You may argue that my wording is not very precise, but I'm not misunderstanding the papers.

If you are understanding them correctly, then you should be able to refer to them accurately. You can tell me you understand, but why should I take you at your word when what I see is continual misrepresentation of what the papers say? The fact that you quote snippets out of context alone tells me you don't understand what a scientific paper is and how it should be read.

[Marcus]

Do you see how you are demanding that others be precise with their language but giving yourself a complete pass? The fact that we can all read the paper doesn't excuse you making false representations about the paper. Your excuse simply doesn't fly.

Okay, fine! But as I said, this is not a gender studies threads. Marcus is trying to derail the thread with childish comments.

Right. It's interesting that the paper in the OP was titled
"Why men are lonelier in America than elsewhere."

When i pointed out DT's sexism in defining a paper about men as a study of people, a form of sexism in which he all too commonly engages, he segued to this paper:

"Why Are Fewer Young Adults Having Casual Sex?"

If nothing else, we've at least gotten DT to use an article about people when he talks about people. That's one goalpost down.