Page 7 of 9 First ... 3456789 Last
  1. #61
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,092
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    Of course there are shallow points in that study. Frankly you may find some in nearly every study.

    Sure, numbers are not that high, at least they had enough to use percentage.

    The study is not the last call? Seriously, what have you expected? Pilosopher's Stone? RLY?

    They call it science, thats why the repeat it, all over and again. Science very well mean: Try, fail, try again, fail better.
    Working it out yourself is intended.
    I get your point, except the part where they're beyond scrutiny cause science. Part of the process is discussing how the process could be done better. Being critical of the last attempt. That's happening here and I don't see any problem with it.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    194
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    @Homernoid

    Don't mistake critique on the study with critique on you. The topic of psychological domincance and its effects is very interesting, but also very complex. To tackle it in a conclusive and scientific manner would take a huge amount of data (to eliminate all the other variables).
    It would be nice if the guys who created the study would get some proper funding for further research (which might be their intention; the study seems a bit like it is made to get the means for better research).

    Still, nitpicking of other people's studies is the cornerstone of empirical science.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    447
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by nils View Post
    @Homernoid

    Don't mistake critique on the study with critique on you. The topic of psychological domincance and its effects is very interesting, but also very complex. To tackle it in a conclusive and scientific manner would take a huge amount of data (to eliminate all the other variables).
    It would be nice if the guys who created the study would get some proper funding for further research (which might be their intention; the study seems a bit like it is made to get the means for better research).

    Still, nitpicking of other people's studies is the cornerstone of empirical science.
    I agree. However, some smile because they're happy to be where they are at that given moment in their lives.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    157
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atheistmantis View Post
    I agree. However, some smile because they're happy to be where they are at that given moment in their lives.
    And some smile as in Jason "Mayhem" Miller, right before he would get really beat up. At times, smiling is a sign of weakness while a grin can be a show of epic respect.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    130
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    I get your point, except the part where they're beyond scrutiny cause science. Part of the process is discussing how the process could be done better. Being critical of the last attempt. That's happening here and I don't see any problem with it.
    I don't see neither. I would't call it a problem, no semantic-discussion intented. IMO it's just a very small a study - I even tend to regard it as a pre-study, like a first exploration.
    I'm fine with anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by nils View Post
    @Homernoid

    Don't mistake critique on the study with critique on you.
    I don't.

    Enjoy nitpicking.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,138
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    Enjoy nitpicking.
    I hate to be a douchenozzle on this, but nitpicking in the social sciences is a must for experimental design and interpretation. There are too many things going on in the social sciences to truly isolate the things you are interested it by doing things in a half-assed manner. If you chose to you could work on correlating the smiles with the betting odds and call the paper, "The Odds Are Against You? Smile."

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,271
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by -TANK- View Post
    And some smile as in Jason "Mayhem" Miller, right before he would get really beat up. At times, smiling is a sign of weakness while a grin can be a show of epic respect.
    A vet told me, a while back, that recent animal research indicates a closed-mouthed smile, in mammals (including primates) shows a wish to either play or co-operate---while a show-the-teeth grin is supposed to be a warning.

    So...you've been warned: the grinning person may be about to bite you.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    130
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by wetware View Post
    I hate to be a douchenozzle on this, but nitpicking in the social sciences is a must for experimental design and interpretation. There are too many things going on in the social sciences to truly isolate the things you are interested it by doing things in a half-assed manner. If you chose to you could work on correlating the smiles with the betting odds and call the paper, "The Odds Are Against You? Smile."
    I am very aware of that point (the half-assed manner etc.). I know it is crucial and seldom worth a second look.
    Nils was first to use the word, where I responded to that critique-point:

    Quote Originally Posted by nils View Post
    @Homernoid

    Still, nitpicking of other people's studies is the cornerstone of empirical science.

    This, for example, is a good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vieux Normand View Post
    A vet told me, a while back, that recent animal research indicates a closed-mouthed smile, in mammals (including primates) shows a wish to either play or co-operate---while a show-the-teeth grin is supposed to be a warning.

    So...you've been warned: the grinning person may be about to bite you.
    To me, the study suffers on bad variable-choices. It almost seems, the authors have no clue on diffrent meanings of smiles, so they picked the intensity of smile - whatever this may be - an something worth of being meassured.
    To be perfectly honest, all those things they obviously missed, hold vague, or just backup with difficult statisical operations for little gain, nearly help to give an inpression what's really behind this thing.

  9. #69
    Tranquil Suit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,838
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    (button in upper right corner) Settings> (left menu under My Account) General Settings > in Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    447
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    We're actually arguing about smiles. Wow! Certainly there must be something more interesting to discuss. Or perhaps I am the one who put the turd in the punch bowl.

Page 7 of 9 First ... 3456789 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO