The Penis NEVER lies

Quantifying and analysing human behaviour isn't science?
 
so in other words, everybody loves gay porn. i know i do
 
Haters hating on Sociology, y'all.
 
Actually the "closet homos" in this study are bisexuals, since they were aroused by straight and lesbian porn.
 
The worst part is, they get research money for that banal 'science', that could be going to the proper sciences. despicable.
 
Wasn't this already posted? Maybe I spotted it elsewhere. Anyway,

Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29)
Click to expand...

pretty small sample groups, innit? Not that I'd be surprised if it were true, but could you really glean meaningful results from this?
 
Mr Stabby said:
Not really, Humans are irrational, and can't really be analysed the way an electron can.
Click to expand...
Irrationality and lack of simple causality does not mean that analysing human behaviour isn't worthwhile or constructive. You just need a different methodology than the ones associated with the natural sciences.
 
Hence its not scientific, and can't be stated as a matter of fact result.
 
Science relies on isolating variables, there are too many variables involved, in how humans feel about eachother. Human feelings are also not testable, in the scientific sense.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Hence its not scientific, and can't be stated as a matter of fact result.
Click to expand...

How is studying human behavior not scientific? By your definition biology would not be a science. They were testing the unconscious reaction of the human nervous and reproductive systems when exposed to homoerotic imagery. Thus demonstrating a disconnect between human opinions and automated bodily responses. That sounds like science to me.
 
lord_raken said:
How is studying human behavior not scientific? By your definition biology would not be a science. They were testing the unconscious reaction of the human nervous and reproductive systems when exposed to homoerotic imagery. Thus demonstrating a disconnect between human opinions and automated bodily responses. That sounds like science to me.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question, did you not?

What did I say that pertians to biology not being scientific?
 
It may be 'impure' but it's still classed as a Science.
 
Mr Stabby said:
The worst part is, they get research money for that banal 'science', that could be going to the proper sciences. despicable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm an economics major, but I'd still want them to get more money into the real sciences.

Stuff that tries to quantify and analyze human behavior truly fails in most cases - humans are too irrational and individualistic that it makes me sick. Maybe not so much in economics, though - the variables do account for human irrationality, and in the macro sense, individual human reaction is not so important. But maybe that's me trying to justify my studying of something that's not physics or astronomy.

I've a rule of thumb about study subjects - if it can't be graphed, it's not worth learning. If the graph keeps varying every time you make it, it's a shitty science.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Science relies on isolating variables, there are too many variables involved, in how humans feel about eachother. Human feelings are also not testable, in the scientific sense.
Click to expand...
Precisely how many variables is "too many"?
 
Suggesting that there are too many variables is very unscientific. In fact, many of this "bad science" is trying to catalogue and devise the variables of human behavior. Just because we don't understand it now does not mean we can't or won't understand them, but if we don't try we never will. Don't be remembered as one of the people who shortsightedly dismissed an area of inquiry only to be proven the fool by more open-minded and inquisitive people.
 
Who knew that all those gay men who said homophobes were just projecting were actually right?
 
Stigmata said:
Precisely how many variables is "too many"?
Click to expand...

One or more that's not been unaccounted for.

lord_raken said:
Suggesting that there are too many variables is very unscientific. In fact, many of this "bad science" is trying to catalogue and devise the variables of human behavior. Just because we don't understand it now does not mean we can't or won't understand them, but if we don't try we never will. Don't be remembered as one of the people who shortsightedly dismissed an area of inquiry only to be proven the fool by more open-minded and inquisitive people.
Click to expand...

It's not scientific then. Science is a certain thing, which this does not meet the criteria of.

Really this is just occam's razor deductive reasoning, and it may be right, but it ain't science.
 
Clearly watching and participating is a different experience. Can't imagine if it wasn't.
 
Hmm, maybe this whole argument is just about semantics. In Sweden pretty much all academic endeavours, including philosophy, history and literature, are considered science, but it might by different in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. If your point is that these results can never be objective, then I agree with you, but if there is enough transparency in the methodology, the conclusions are still valid.
 
The problem is that relating increased penis circumference directly to a sexual preference when that is probably a pre-programmed response to the intimacy of two other individuals.

They can do a test on me if they prefer. Sitting on a train wearing jeans which might be a little tight in places, with the gentle rocking motion of the train. And yes...my circumference may increase coincidently. As a top scientician I can conclude I'm lustful for locomotion.
 
Mr Stabby said:
One or more that's not been unaccounted for.



It's not scientific then. Science is a certain thing, which this does not meet the criteria of.

Really this is just occam's razor deductive reasoning, and it may be right, but it ain't science.
Click to expand...

Take a Myers-Briggs test and look at an analysis from here and tell me psychology can't give accurate and dependable answers.

I want to show you, but I can't really, one of many APS journal articles about human behavioral studies. They have all the symptoms of what is called 'science.'

EDIT: Kudos on the title Stern, I laughed heartily.
 
Do you really think a questionare of people's opinions of themsleves, falls under the domain of empirical evidence. I sure don't.

I skim read the questionaire and noticed numerous ambiguous questions, science my ass.
 
Hectic Glenn said:
The problem is that relating increased penis circumference directly to a sexual preference when that is probably a pre-programmed response to the intimacy of two other individuals.
.
Click to expand...


wtf is going on in this thread?

lets all drop our trousers and check our circumferences just to be absolutely sure there's NO GAY. my penis has increased in circumference by 50 kalicams. obviously I have thing for klingons and should take the appropriate measures


klingon-bunny.jpg
 
Mr Stabby said:
One or more that's not been unaccounted for.
Click to expand...
This tosses all science out the window. Humans are not omniscient, and can never account for everything at any point ever in any context.

Mr Stabby said:
Do you really think a questionare of people's opinions of themsleves, falls under the domain of empirical evidence. I sure don't.

I skim read the questionaire and noticed numerous ambiguous questions, science my ass.
Click to expand...

The whole point of having multiple ambiguous questions is to have the same question asked of you in different ways, to see if and how you respond differently. When similar questions are answered differently because of different semantics, it can indicate the presence of things such as emotional instability or depression, certain psychological disorders, certain cognitive biases, and so forth, depending on the content of the questions. These aspects of your mind define your personality to a very high degree.
 
Hectic Glenn said:
They can do a test on me if they prefer. Sitting on a train wearing jeans which might be a little tight in places, with the gentle rocking motion of the train. And yes...my circumference may increase coincidently. As a top scientician I can conclude I'm lustful for locomotion.
Click to expand...

That train probably isn't even 18 years old you pervert.
 
/facepalm.

No it doesn't. Opinions are not empirical, it must be empirical to be science. Temperature is an empirical variable, opinion is not.
 
Temperature is an even scale with an arbitrary origin. The closest we have to empirical temperature is Kelvin, but nobody has measured 0 Kelvin yet.
 
Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. The difference in temperature between two objects can be empirically measured and compared. Homophobia cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
"If you get raped during the night it's your own fault"
Replies
17
Views
963
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Raziaar
Mandatory Circumcision
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
DEATHMASTER
DEATHMASTER
Back
Top