597 karma · joined October 23, 2019
8 vs 34.7
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-co...
I wish twitter can let me choose to filter out any information from accounts with less than 10000 followers, with exception of my own followings.
So it does work.
Dawkins: It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.
https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/12289436869...
Crazy woke activitists like this author is not qualified to speak for science. They think if something is politically wrong must also be scientifically wrong. It is not.
Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.
There's no serious psychology journal going to publish this kind of stuff. Why? The first problem is measurement. What is the reliability of using positive/negative words to determine positive/negative emotional state? 70%? 80%?
The effect size of this study is 0.001, which would be way way way smaller than the measurement error. LOL. What a laughable "study".
"prevalent"? Like how? I think you are making up. Still exist? Definitely yes. Prevalent? No way. Unless you have a very different kind sense of "prevalent".
Actually people in small towns in general are much nicer than big cities and usually they don't care about your skin color or whatever. And they in general appreciate "a slight countercultural bent", unless you have a different sense of "slight".