Here's an addition to a previous post back to you that you may not have seen due to the way it was EDITED and added on to it later on:
This other link points out the FLAWS in the STUDY:
https://www.insider.com/baby-boomers-are-more-sensitive-than-millennials-large-study-finds-2019-12
There were some caveats to the study. For example, the researchers relied on existing data sets to reach their conclusions rather than personally following people of different generations for decades. Chopik also noted that narcissism can be measured various ways and they only used one of those methods, which could have skewed the results.
So it's saying this study IGNORES the WARNINGS or RED FLAGS in regards to the study. And explains how it relies on DATA SETS to reach conclusions rather than following different generations of people for decades.
And it's also pointed out how there are VARIOUS ways to measure narcissism, but since only ONE METHOD was used, that could also result it the FLAWS found in the conclusion of it.
So what's the MOTIVATION for not paying attention to the ALARMS???
Why were DATA SETS used instead of following people for decades???
Why use only ONE METHOD when there were a VARIETY of other METHODS to chose from???
What MOTIVATES someone to chose unsound METHODS in the first place???
Was it a result of being LAZY??? Not wanting to do more WORK (which using other METHODS would have required) ???
Whatever the case may be, apparently someone did check the METHODS and found that the RESULTS of it were NOT SOUND.
And if a study was done to try and PROVE that another one that you didn't like the results of was wrong, then one could also see someone's MOTIVATION for doing one based upon JEALOUS RESENTMENT of another one that you didn't like the results of.
If someone did a study and found that most people didn't like the kind of cookies you were selling, for example, you could probably also hire someone to do another one that said MOST people in your study DID LIKE them.
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
3 years ago
These caveats aren't flaws of methodology; they're just advising that a better quality (in this case meaning more up to date) dataset is theoretically plausible.
If there were flaws in the methodology, it would almost certainly have failed its peer-review unless there had been a catastrophic system failure.
reply
share
joi2049 (5632)
3 years ago
Sounds to me like the study studied DATA instead of PEOPLE themselves.
And since part of the study also says people had CHANGED by the time they reached age 40, the best thing to have done would have been to study or follow the people themselves instead of attempting to analyze them by using DATA that may not have even been as reliable.
Because instead of doing the RESEARCH themselves, they probably also relied on something that someone else had composed or put together (which would probably also not be as reliable or as dependable as if they'd composed it themselves).
Because how would they know whether or not what someone else had done or gathered together was free of FLAWS or not???
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
3 years ago
The data was based on people. The point is invalid.
because instead of doing the RESEARCH themselves
They did do the research themselves; they just used some pre-existing datasets. A lot of science does this. Science is a conversation. There's no reason to believe the used datasets are flawed. The caveat is simply a head's up that better quality data is plausible.
Also: research is expensive and grants are difficult to come by. But happily, science is replicable. Someone else may follow the study up.
Because how would they know whether or not what someone else had done or gathered together was free of FLAWS or not???
The methodology almost certainly isn't flawed. If it was, the study would have failed at the peer-review stage and would not have been published. Journals need to keep their reputations good. One or two bad studies can destroy that reputation. The peer-review process is very rigorous. That's the whole point of it.
reply
share
joi2049 (5632)
3 years ago
But someone has also already pointed out the reason why this STUDY is FLAWED.
1) Because it used DATA SETS instead of actually following people (rather than personally following people of different generations for decades).
2) And because it also only used ONE METHOD to determine whether or not someone was NARCISSISTIC or not when there were also other METHODS that could also be used (they only used one of those methods, which could have skewed the results).
Therefore the METHODS that were used were FLAWED.
Right???
So what MOTIVATED those doing the STUDY to not use these other METHODS and leave themselves open to such CRITICISM???
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
3 years ago
Nobody has pointed out that the study is flawed; someone - probably the researchers themselves - have added a caveat.
I can only provide you with information on how academia works; I can't force you to think academically. I will, however, point out that you are exhibiting the same kind of cherry-picking that you scorn in antivaxxer. The same mental processes and cognitive biases are involved.
You could just as easily have posted a link to a study on vaccine efficacy, invited people to ignore it and tell you how they felt about the subject. You could then have subjected the vaccine researchers to attacks over their 'motivation' and pulled up caveats to attempt to discredit the findings in a completely bogus, anti-intellectual manner.
You can't claim to be in favour of the science only when the science agrees with your own pre-existing ideas or prejudices.
It's exactly the same as the thinking behind antivax conversations. That you can't see this blind spot is a shame. But you can take a horse to water....
I'm bowing out again.
reply
share
joi2049 (5632)
3 years ago
CORRECTION:
This is something that someone else wrote (not me).
So the accusation that I'm cherry picking is not ACCURATE when someone else has written that paragraph.
Plus several other POSTERS have also been CRITICAL of the study as well, yet you have nothing to say to them about what they've said???
Again, it was someone else (not me) who wrote that CRITIQUE.
reply
share