Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kipzi t1_iy3d1dn wrote

I wish psypost was banned from this subreddit.

158

TheBroMagnon t1_iy4fit3 wrote

I have a hunch that certain topics are practically paid to be made popular on here - especially the social science ones.

9

rocketseeker t1_iy5cml4 wrote

right????? Hasn't it been past the obvious line for a long time? I've been following this sub for a while now, do mods exist here?

6

[deleted] t1_iy3qeze wrote

[deleted]

−2

Moont1de t1_iy3r2fq wrote

> If it's real science they'll publish somewhere else, with genetic data.

What genetic data exactly do you think would make this specific study more scientific?

3

Yashema t1_iy4g5sl wrote

For accurately relaying the conclusion of a psychological paper that it links directly to? We should ban something on a science reddit for being informative?

−10

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4mrpl wrote

There are better and worse studies. Psypost doesn't appear to distinguish based on quality, probably because their business model is making ad revenue from as many studies as possible.

Then for whatever reason, low quality studies are posted here with the link to Psypost rather than the actual study.

9

Yashema t1_iy4pbmo wrote

> Psypost doesn't appear to distinguish based on quality, probably because their business model is making ad revenue from as many studies as possible.

Psypost doesnt publish studies, they just provide further context for often paywalled studies.

The study has to be from a journal of a certain impact score or it gets removed from the sub.

> Then for whatever reason, low quality studies are posted here with the link to Psypost rather than the actual study.

What makes this a low quality study? It seems lazy to attack Psypost which is nothing more than a online site that does press releases for psychologically focused studies while linking directly to the study.

−5

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4t88z wrote

I would rather lazily attack Psypost for publicizing low quality studies than vigilantly defend Psypost for publicizing low quality studies. We must have different motivators, c'est la vie.

12

Yashema t1_iy4uncr wrote

What makes the current study being discussed in the Psypost article low quality? You have not addressed that despite me asking multiple times.

−4

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy50a4q wrote

> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?

>> Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.

>>> What makes the current study being discussed in the Psypost article low quality? You have not addressed that despite me asking multiple times.

-.- You evidently have more time to waste than I do. Cheers.

3

Yashema t1_iy50vty wrote

> Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.

In the Psypost article:

> Study participants completed an assessment of sexual distress that used items from the Sexual Complaint Screener for Men (SCS-M), of body image self-consciousness (Male Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale), partner-oriented sexual perfectionism (Multidimensional Sexual Perfectionism Questionnaire) and pathological narcissistic traits of vulnerable, and grandiose narcissism (Pathological Narcissism Inventory, PNI)

They measure two different things in the field of psychology.

> You evidently have more time to waste than I do. Cheers.

You evidently have no ability to follow scientific discussion and can't even read a simple press release.

Cheers

−2

Kipzi t1_iy4iy87 wrote

This is about as informative as "breathing polluted air bad". Almost always low quality posts from that particular site I've noticed.

6

Yashema t1_iy4jf1q wrote

What makes the post low quality? And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?

−4

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4n5t3 wrote

> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?

Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.

7

Yashema t1_iy4p536 wrote

They are not definitionally correlated and are two different concepts which is why this paper south to correlate them.

−4

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4tngp wrote

I was not expecting "Nuh-uh" as a reply.

4

Yashema t1_iy4uwwe wrote

Again, if you only read the context provided by PsyPost you would see your equivocation of the two terms shows an incorrect understanding of how the terms are defined in the field of psychology:

> Study participants completed an assessment of sexual distress that used items from the Sexual Complaint Screener for Men (SCS-M), of body image self-consciousness (Male Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale), partner-oriented sexual perfectionism (Multidimensional Sexual Perfectionism Questionnaire) and pathological narcissistic traits of vulnerable, and grandiose narcissism (Pathological Narcissism Inventory, PNI).

The two concepts measure different things.

−1

Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy511fn wrote

Calling terms "definitionally correlated" is not "equivocation". There seem to be a lot of terms here that you don't understand.

I have no more time for this unproductive conversation. Cheers.

4

Yashema t1_iy523zb wrote

Again the Psypost press release cannot be any more clear that the two terms are measured by separate scales. You apparently understand little of psychology.

I assume most of your discussions are unproductive if you double down when shown to be wrong.

Cheers.

−1