12 Mar 15
Wow, it is true, the dudes in orange with a shaved head
*truly* are non-violent!
I thought it was an urban legend, but today I saw them
banging their hipster drums and giving flowers away,
and I decided to put it to test.
First I grabbed a boob from one of the women in the group
and when they got nervous and bitchy about it, I proceeded
to give a gentle slap to one of the dudes telling me how
I needed love in my life.
Got a laugh, walked away, and I feel stupendous because
this is 100% for science, guys. I mean, really, you have
a hypothesis, you test it, and you record the results. Right?
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by SeitseNo that was plain wrong in any ethical scheme I care to value.
Wow, it is true, the dudes in orange with a shaved head
*truly* are non-violent!
I thought it was an urban legend, but today I saw them
banging their hipster drums and giving flowers away,
and I decided to put it to test.
First I grabbed a boob from one of the women in the group
and when they got nervous and bitchy about it, I proceeded
to give a g ...[text shortened]... e, guys. I mean, really, you have
a hypothesis, you test it, and you record the results. Right?
Originally posted by SeitseNo. IT is not.
ISN'T IT?!?!
The best you can claim is to have garnered circumstantial evidence.
If you wanted to provide science with insights you should have had to answer a scientific question. Before performing your experiment you should have made an ethics check.
And you probably didn't get a permit from the people you petsered, that they wanted to be included in your "scientific" test.
I expect that you post here when you will publish the results in a scientific paper.
edit: A story for you on science: A journalist, a physicist and a mathematician go on a train journey to Scottland. Just after passing the frontier the Journalist looks out of the window and sees a sheep. He says excitedly: "hey in Scottland sheep are black"
Says the physicist: "In scottland there is at least one black sheep"
Says the mathematician: "In Scottland is at least one sheep which is black on at least one side."
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by PonderableWhat about social science?
No. IT is not.
The best you can claim is to have garnered circumstantial evidence.
If you wanted to provide science with insights you should have had to answer a scientific question. Before performing your experiment you should have made an ethics check.
And you probably didn't get a permit from the people you petsered, that they wanted to be included ...[text shortened]... fic" test.
I expect that you post here when you will publish the results in a scientific paper.
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by PonderableWell, technically, since they did not retaliate I do not have
Did you ask?
evidence of the contrary.
If we assume that the basic instincts of humans, when faced
with discomfort, are summed up as (a) fight, or (b) flight;
they did neither, hence it can be safely inferred that they
were not faced with discomfort. The absence of discomfort
is, in a binary perspective, comfort. Therefore they were
comfortable with me grabbing a boob and slapping a face.
For science, that is.
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by Seitse"automatic" behaviour is fight or flight, but reflected humans have also some more options. They can endure.
Well, technically, since they did not retaliate I do not have
evidence of the contrary.
If we assume that the basic instincts of humans, when faced
with discomfort, are summed up as (a) fight, or (b) flight;
they did neither, hence it can be safely inferred that they
were not faced with discomfort. The absence of discomfort
is, in a binary perspective ...[text shortened]... ore they were
comfortable with me grabbing a boob and slapping a face.
For science, that is.
Satndning in a queue is a discomfort to most people, but they still do it to obatin something.
If you were blessed with empathy you probably would have feeled if the persons were comfortable (which I doubt) or not.
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by PonderableIndeed, which is the 'fast thinking' (Khanemman dixit), i.e.
"automatic" behaviour is fight or flight, but reflected humans have also some more options. They can endure.
Satndning in a queue is a discomfort to most people, but they still do it to obatin something.
If you were blessed with empathy you probably would have feeled if the persons were comfortable (which I doubt) or not.
human natural reactions away from the nurtured 'slow
thinking' in which learned behaviors come into play. Since
they instinctively showed no signs of discomfort, the only
ones which can be measured vs. my assumptions as
field researcher, it is safe to conclude that they were
comfortable with it.
Although I agree with your assertion regarding empathy,
I consider that it is not accurate to reflect upon them my
own conceptions of comfort or discomfort. You see, being
a sociopath skews a bit my perceptions of them hence I
must rely on empirical evidence.
Am I ready to publish now?
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by SeitseI suggest that yournal:
Indeed, which is the 'fast thinking' (Khanemman dixit), i.e.
human natural reactions away from the nurtured 'slow
thinking' in which learned behaviors come into play. Since
they instinctively showed no signs of discomfort, the only
ones which can be measured vs. my assumptions as
field researcher, it is safe to conclude that they were
comfortable with ...[text shortened]... t my perceptions of them hence I
must rely on empirical evidence.
Am I ready to publish now?
http://www.jir.com/