Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[Enkidu]

No one asked you to read them, having 90+ studies was my point, read.

This is stupid. When someone writes a scientific paper they cite previous research in the field. Whether a paper has 10 or 10,000 references it makes no inference on the scientific validity of the research.

[kuronosan]

I'm not paying $25 to read that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Good news everyone, I get free access.

Also this study is filled with some potential limitations just from reading the abstract.

Edit: first pass on the study and my general impression is that it's shit.

Edit 2: second pass and, yes, it's bad. It has a promising premise but numerous conclusions that they draw are subjective and indeed cherry-picked from references.

It would be like writing a paper saying "Are Jews more likely to hoard money and run Hollywood? Here's my references." and then offering up a conclusion based on evidence that only supports your premise.

This paper is the opposite of scientific analysis. It's fucking dumb and I feel bad that my curiosity made me waste my time reading it critically.

[Yabby]

This is stupid. When someone writes a scientific paper they cite previous research in the field. Whether a paper has 10 or 10,000 references it makes no inference on the scientific validity of the research.

If you really believe that, stop using the word Science to try and prove a point. The more references you pull from, the easier it is to pull from said references in a way that proves your point, even if the point was invalided in the given source. Given enough fucking trump tweets, I could link and source from them to show he loved Obama.

[guartz]

You don't need stats. Just watch his rallies and look at the crowd.

lmao, lemme google peeps at bernie rallies.

wait no, no that was terrible decision. No oh god.

[Yabby]

Can we all stop with the hot people's support for one side or the other? Most people are ugly, move the fuck on.

Edit: Where can i get this fucking jacket....

[Enkidu]

Good news everyone, I get free access.

Also this study is filled with some potential limitations just from reading the abstract.

Edit: first pass on the study and my general impression is that it's shit.

Edit 2: second pass and, yes, it's bad. It has a promising premise but numerous conclusions that they draw are subjective and indeed cherry-picked from references.

It would be like writing a paper saying "Are Jews more likely to hoard money and run Hollywood? Here's my references." and then offering up a conclusion based on evidence that only supports your premise.

This paper is the opposite of scientific analysis. It's fucking dumb and I feel bad that my curiosity made me waste my time reading it critically.

Bad take, obvious bias. I'm guessing you also have zero experience in their field, which of course makes your opinion even more worthless.

They used two separate and distinct data sets and corroborated the data, good enough for me. Coupled with the fact that wealth and political affiliation are linked as well as wealth and physical attractiveness, most would claim the results were expected.

[Enkidu]

If you really believe that, stop using the word Science to try and prove a point. The more references you pull from, the easier it is to pull from said references in a way that proves your point, even if the point was invalided in the given source. Given enough fucking trump tweets, I could link and source from them to show he loved Obama.

You don't know how science or references work, go away.

[kuronosan]

Bad take, obvious bias. I'm guessing you also have zero experience in their field, which of course makes your opinion even more worthless.

They used two separate and distinct data sets and corroborated the data, good enough for me. Coupled with the fact that wealth and political affiliation are linked as well as wealth and physical attractiveness, most would claim the results were expected.

Hahahahaha you're funny.

[Yabby]

You don't know how science or references work, go away.

You don't know how the science community is forced to fund their research, but keep acting like you know what you are talking about.

[Enkidu]

You don't know how the science community is forced to fund their research, but keep acting like you know what you are talking about.

Considering I'm part of the science community and I can pretty much guarantee you're not, no.

[Yabby]

Considering I'm part of the science community and I can pretty much guarantee you're not, no.

Same

[Salodin]

Bad take, obvious bias. I'm guessing you also have zero experience in their field, which of course makes your opinion even more worthless.

They used two separate and distinct data sets and corroborated the data, good enough for me. Coupled with the fact that wealth and political affiliation are linked as well as wealth and physical attractiveness, most would claim the results were expected.

Bruh you linked pretty bad science, and if you are in the stem field like you say you are you should be able to admit that

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Enkidu]

Saying it's bad science without providing evidence is pretty much what climate deniers do. Again, they used two distinct data sets and controlled for what they could. Adding to this, as wealth/political preference and wealth/attractiveness have been linked for years, these results are just about expected. But please, refute away.

[Salodin]

Saying it's bad science without providing evidence is pretty much what climate deniers do. Again, they used two distinct data sets and controlled for what they could. Adding to this, as wealth/political preference and wealth/attractiveness have been linked for years, these results are just about expected. But please, refute away.

Someone walked you through how it was misleading, but maybe you missed the post so just scroll up.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Just cause people disagree with you using the excuse "bad science" doesnt mean its lazy or wrong. What matters is the case they make and they're doing a better job making their case then you are when you go "nu uh my article is right even though you have dozens more saying otherwise"

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

The fact that it takes from 1972,74, and 76 data alone makes it a shit study. What was right and left almost 40 years ago was a little different than today. But don't worry, you can say you won this. You are an amazing researcher, and we know that scientific studies are never flawed based on who funds them.

Let set aside that the study pretty much says that the reason people that look good are right because they have less hardships in life, as life itself is easier. You know, like how rich people say money isn't everything?

[Enkidu]

Just cause people disagree with you using the excuse "bad science" doesnt mean its lazy or wrong. What matters is the case they make and they're doing a better job making their case then you are when you go "nu uh my article is right even though you have dozens more saying otherwise"

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Dozens more? What? All the one guy did was claim it was "subjective and cherry picked", but the authors even admitted that the first data set couldn't be controlled for subjective bias so they used another distinct data set to control for that... The other dude is just a dolt who claimed that because it had a lot of references it must be wrong.

Also, as I've said, it's just about an expected result.

[Salodin]

Dozens more? What? All the one guy did was claim it was "subjective and cherry picked", but the authors even admitted that the first data set couldn't be controlled for subjective bias so they used another distinct data set to control for that... The other dude is just a dolt who claimed that because it had a lot of references it must be wrong.

Also, as I've said, it's just about an expected result.

Okay, so then look at the post above this one lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

Okay, so then look at the post above this one lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He called me a dolt bro, he won, it's over.

[Enkidu]

Okay, so then look at the post above this one lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The paper uses data from 1972/4/6 and connects it to data from 2005/2011. So? Again, the connection between wealth and political preference is well known along with wealth and attractiveness. This is just using data, which they admit is sparse, to connect the very likely political preference/attractiveness gap.