brickyardjimmy t1_iy4rq5g wrote
Why even do a study on this?
​
Of course this is true. Humans are much more likely to seek contrast in anything because that's where the potential for threat is greatest. So, yeah, a negative comment is likely to attract our attention because we are hard-wired to look for it out of safety.
1leggeddog t1_iy4ufpl wrote
> Why even do a study on this?
Because we need data. My college professors years ago told us we'd be doing this til the end of time. And that we need ot keep doing it, because policies change, views on subjects, change over time by different age groups and identities.
And everytime you say something, no matter how mundane, you'll be challenged to prove it with facts all the time.
theFletch t1_iy4x0c2 wrote
"I can challenge anything with made-up facts." - says the internet.
WillBePeace t1_iy7t6i0 wrote
Your facts are nothing compared to my anecdotal evidence
TheLAriver t1_iy4z7lr wrote
We don't need data. We already have data. This was already common knowledge and not debated before this study existed. But it's also already been studied plenty.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161214524832
No one is gonna be challenged for sharing this opinion. It's so commonly held that some people have felt the need to try to push back against it with focuses on positive news.
I also don't see how this study would have any impact on policy. It's not a question that's relevant to legal policy. Unless you're hoping to live in some kind of fascist dystopia where your online activity is evaluated for negativity.
1leggeddog t1_iy56kej wrote
Data is not finite.
Data has a shelf life.
Just take the myriads of studies done on Alcohol. It was proven many times over to be bad for you. Ok.
Then it was proven to have beneficial effects for some with helping with coronary artery disease, lower bad cholesterol, etc etc.
Then the concentration of blood/alcohol ratio allowed before it becomes impaired driving was revisited several times over the years and refined according to better health understanding of the human body.
What i'm saying is that not only does the univserse change, so does our understanding of it. And that impacts past studies and past truths we held as facts, often to a greater amount of certainty.
brickyardjimmy t1_iy5hn1e wrote
Why do you need data? What do you plan to do with it? How do you plan to package and sell it and to whom?
​
Or do you need the data for shits and giggles or for some altruistic purpose?
​
This isn't science. It's gobbledygook at best.
Mr_SkeletaI t1_iy5043h wrote
These comments are so annoying. There are so many things that may seem obvious to us, but aren’t true. Like claiming we don’t need a study that hair grows back thicker after you shave it, because obviously it does (it doesn’t).
We need solid evidence and data to prove things and to act on them.
brickyardjimmy t1_iy5hbzu wrote
This sort of study, invariably, will not provide intelligence that anyone will use to benefit human life. It will, however, be used most likely to help marketers or politicians fuck with human life.
​
That is way more annoying than a dismissive comment.
Mr_SkeletaI t1_iy5jt3m wrote
Redditors try not making bold cynical claims with no evidence challenge (impossible)
CarelessHisser t1_iy4w3zm wrote
We're also naturally attracted to drama and conflict so ye.
toiletscrubber t1_iy4vsy3 wrote
more like its because positive comments are the norm and they lose significance
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments