doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

I just want everyone to know DT lied about having read the study. He’s a damn liar.

- Doc

Just because I am not posting the entire study here? LOL Ever heard of copyright laws? Get a life Doc!

I read it, no it doesn’t. Quote the paragraph that you think supports your point.

It's there. Nope, you look for it.

Lol.

[Res Ipsa]

Should children be taught to accept children who are different from them. Absolutely. Should children who have trouble with social skills be given instruction in how to improve those skills? Absolutely. Should schools both and expect and require a basic level of civil treatment of others? Certainly.

Schools can also do some fearmongering. Schools do a good job in doing fearmongering about STDs and pregnancy, Why can't schools do some fearmongering about violence and social exclusion?

People usually blame the devil or mental illness for senseless acts of violence. No one admits that social exclusion could be a contributing factor.

It's sad that this comment will have to be hidden here in the trash can. You guys don't care about any solutions or the well-being of others.

You posted a link to a study. There was no access to the study without paying $18. You said you read the study. How many pages are there in the study you linked?

This thread is now in the trash can. Apparently, the mods have no interest in taking this subject seriously.

What, precisely, are you proposing that we should make children afraid of?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just want everyone to know DT lied about having read the study. He’s a damn liar.

- Doc

Just because I am not posting the entire study here? LOL Ever heard of copyright laws? Get a life Doc!

I read it, no it doesn’t. Quote the paragraph that you think supports your point.

It's there. Nope, you look for it.

This is the reason why you’re a social pariah, and virtually no woman would give you the time of the day and you lack friends. You’re a dishonest wimp who doesn’t ever take responsibility for yourself. You’re weak, undisciplined, and incapable of good social behavior.

For once in your pathetic life, do the right thing. Admit here and now that you didn’t read the study.

- Doc



See? If I wanted I could upload every page in a minute. DT is a liar, and a worm.

[Doctor Steuss]

The study says that aggression is just as meaningful as physical harm.

No, it doesn't. If it did, you'd be able to post the paragraph where that's said.

It's just another demonstrable instance of a pathological inability to read for comprehension, or accurately synthesize information. I don't know why I continue to waste favors for research university access. I have my own pathologies, I guess.

DT's bizarrely simplistic mangled summarization of the study comes from one of three experiments ("Experiment 1") in which they state:

We measured aggression by giving participants the opportunity to damage another person's chances of getting a desirable job. This constitutes a measure of aggression because the evaluation has the potential to thwart the person's personal and career goals, a retaliation just as meaningful as physical harm.

(page 1060 of the journal)


For those who may be curious, here's the findings table from the experiment:


One thing I notice is that the fake personality results they gave don't exactly have neutral language. They essentially insulted people, and then found it meaningful that the people who had already been insulted acted more negatively when insulted again than the groups that hadn't already been insulted previously.

One kind of bizarre thing is that "misfortune" group. They were basically told they were accident prone. For some reason this appears to have made them less prone to retaliatory behavior in the experiment. I wonder if there's something about the physical aspect that increased emotional empathy?

Naturally, the concluding remarks are tepid in drawing any type of definitive causality, noting their research only provides some support for the opposite direction of causality from the existing (and not disproven) plausible theories that lonely people don't become insufferable douche-canoes. They become lonely people because they are insufferable douche-canoes.


ETA:
Should probably add the language from the fake personality test findings, as it's pretty stark.

You're the type who will end up alone later in life. You may have friends and relationships now, but by your mid 20s most of these will have drifted away. You may even marry or have several marriages, but these are likely to be short-lived and not continue into your 30s. Relationships don't last, and when you're past the age where people are constantly forming new relationships, the odds are you'll end up being alone more and more.

In contrast, people in the future belonging condition were told,

You're the type who has rewarding relationships throughout life. You're likely to have a long and stable marriage and have friendships that will last into your later years. The odds are that you'll always have friends and people who care about you.

Last, we included a misfortune control condition in which people were told,

You're likely to be accident prone later in life—you might break an arm or a leg a few times, or maybe be injured in car accidents. Even if you haven't been accident prone before, these things will show up later in life, and the odds are you will have a lot of accidents.

[doubtingthomas]

For once in your pathetic life, do the right thing. Admit here and now that you didn’t read the study.

Doc, I read the study. Now, I did skip some paragraphs, but I read the important parts, especially the conclusion. I am not claiming that the study concludes that social exclusion causes violence.

This is the reason why you’re a social pariah, and virtually no woman would give you the time of the day and you lack friends.

That's not true Doc.

[doubtingthomas]

.
DT's bizarrely simplistic mangled summarization of the study comes from one of three experiments ("Experiment 1") in which they state:

So, it's not accurate to say that there's a correlation?

We measured aggression by giving participants the opportunity to damage another person's chances of getting a desirable job. This constitutes a measure of aggression because the evaluation has the potential to thwart the person's personal and career goals, a retaliation just as meaningful as physical harm.

Thank you for showing that Marcus is lying.

It says that retaliation (cause by aggression) is as meaningful as physical harm.

I read it, no it doesn’t. Quote the paragraph that you think supports your point.

[doubtingthomas]

What, precisely, are you proposing that we should make children afraid of?

Fearmongering. Tell the parents that bullying and social exclusion increases the chances that a kid brings a weapon to school.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

For once in your pathetic life, do the right thing. Admit here and now that you didn’t read the study.

Doc, I read the study. Now, I did skip some paragraphs, but I read the important parts, especially the conclusion. I am not claiming that the study concludes that social exclusion causes violence.

This is the reason why you’re a social pariah, and virtually no woman would give you the time of the day and you lack friends.

That's not true Doc.

QED

[doubtingthomas]

I posted while you did, and unfortunately, I agree. He didn’t read the study. And he still is behaving just like this, an excerpt from what was posted earlier:

…the rise of the “lone­ly, sin­gle man” arche­type, who skill­ful­ly clothes his misog­y­ny and hate for women in what he per­ceives as an exter­nal­ly imposed and per­pet­u­at­ed lone­li­ness…

https://ferrarsundfields.de/2022/09/04/ ... e-men/amp/

Social exclusion is never externally imposed?

And Doctor Steuss provided the quote that you wanted, so you lied about reading the study.

[Doctor Steuss]

It's just another demonstrable instance of a pathological...

I’m equal parts impressed and amused that would illicit a flurry of selfsame fruits.