Study finds women are responsible for half of some online abuse on Twitter in UK

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

homogeneous wrote: post #58

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #30

> When an article makes a politically correct claim: "Yeah I totally feel this is true, this one time [insert anecdote here]" > When an article makes a not-so politically correct claim: "Well it's not peer reviewed / look at the paper that's publishing it / this is the wrong definition / headline is misleading / [insert criticism not related to the claim]"

This observation sounds like a case of confirmation bias to me. Check out this thread for multiple examples of how this "not-so politically correct claim" "makes sense" (among other thoughtful anecdotes along the trajectory of the article's headline)

Post by adrianlmm » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #31

adrianlmm wrote: post #28

In my almost 40 years of living, I've learned one thing about women, they love attention, and you better learn when is necessary to give it to them and when is better for both if you ignore them.

True but trivial, in that what you say is also true for men. It might still be useful to say, since some men occasionally need reminding that women are humans with human behavior.

Post by nxzero » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

Aelinsaar wrote: post #37

trentmb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your results can't be replicated Results aren't replicated during peer review, are they?

Not necessarily, but at least the methods can be evaluated to see how likely it is that they can be. A black box with, "Trust us, here's what we found" is weak as hell, unless you're still into Pons and Fleischmann I guess.

Post by homogeneous » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #61

homogeneous wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This observation sounds like a case of confirmation bias to me. Check out this thread for multiple examples of how this "not-so politically correct claim" "makes sense" (among other thoughtful anecdotes along the trajectory of the article's headline)

but look at the ratio, way more disagreement that something like a "we need better infrastructure" article. When the topic is politically correct people agree and argue about the edge cases. When it's not politically correct people do mental gymnastics or pile up anecdotes to discredit it.

Post by arprocter » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #61

homogeneous wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This observation sounds like a case of confirmation bias to me. Check out this thread for multiple examples of how this "not-so politically correct claim" "makes sense" (among other thoughtful anecdotes along the trajectory of the article's headline)

but look at the ratio, way more disagreement that something like a "we need better infrastructure" article. When the topic is politically correct people agree and argue about the edge cases. When it's not politically correct people do mental gymnastics or pile up anecdotes to discredit it.