10 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I think what you want is on pages 4 and 5 of the ResearchGate reference I posted.

Thanks a bunch.

However, I would really like the 'science says'-guy elaborate on this supposedly seminal 1988(?) study.

55 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

You provided an abstract and nothing more..? Where is materials and methods and the analyses of those? 

 

There were two links. Read the second article. Or, If you wish to research more, the role empathy plays in this respect, then do your own research on Google. I gave you an opinion that appears to be backed up by the research, I'm happy, if you aren't, then do your own research.

 

55 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

The study itself seems to belong in the realm of psychology. What is the replication rate in that field? 

 

I don't care, if you do, then do some research and find out. 

 

55 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

However, as we will probably never understand each others point of view,

 

We had an entire conversation about this, where I suggested that for you, rather than lack of empathy, or any absence of emotion, its more about self control, why you refrain from crying. No suggestion that YOU lack empathy whatsoever, in fact the opposite. You seemed to agree with this and referred to having a "stiff upper lip". Now, several replies later, you admonish me for suggesting that lack of empathy is one of the reasons why some don't cry. Clearly, you have decided this is some kind of an attack on you. 🙄

 

As I posted before

 

  Quote

Regarding personality features, individuals high on neuroticism and/or empathy cry relatively more (Vingerhoets, 2013; Vingerhoets, van Tilburg, Boelhouwer, & van Heck, 2001), whereas dismissively attached persons tend to cry less than others (Laan, van Assen, & Vingerhoets, 2012). In addition, as we will see later, some psychopathological characteristics may influence an individual’s crying behavior.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6402489/

 

If you disagree with the above, that's your right. 

 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by martin-w

31 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

However, I would really like the 'science says'-guy elaborate on this supposedly seminal 1988(?) study.

 

Why are you being rude and ruining this thread. I'm not the "science says" guy, I'm the "science seems to agree with me that degree of empathy is ONE of the factors" guy.

Does the science NOT say that? If not, please tell us why? 

What "seminal" study? 

Why should I elaborate? I'm no expert, read the articles, do some research, decide for yourself. Why is this so important to you that you are prepared to ruin the thread? 

 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by martin-w

37 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Why are you being rude and ruining this thread. I'm not the "science says" guy, I'm the "science seems to agree with me that degree of empathy is ONE of the factors" guy.

Does the science NOT say that? If not, please tell us why? 

What "seminal" study? 

Why should I elaborate? I'm no expert, read the articles, do some research, decide for yourself.

 

Well. If you pompously declare that 'science says' (which you obviously alluded) that kind of makes you the 'science says' guy, does it not? I am not here to 'prove a negative' ('please provide research that disproves my one assertion that a perfect set of Ming porcelain orbits Pluto'). 

You make a statement and expect no push-back but I am happy to provide that. Don't misinterpret this as hostility. Not my intention at all. I mean, surely your google-fu regarding studies of this and that could take a wee bit of questioning? But it seems like I offend you when I question your 'Scientisms'?

If I was you I would point out where I was wrong in my critique and then we'll take it from there. I have read hundreds, if not thousands of academic papers, and when I read an ambiguous last sentence in an abstract, I smell something reminding me of something coming out from the backside of bovines. 

*I have to excuse the audience for my slightly unfocused answer as I am wrestling a six and eight year old more or less as i type this. Send help. Arrows with sedatives would be nice.

20 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

I have read hundreds, if not thousands of academic papers,

So, aren't you the most qualified person to read the whole article and give us your expert opinion on the research and the conclusions?

Just now, dmwalker said:

So, aren't you the most qualified person to read the whole article and give us your expert opinion on the research and the conclusions?

Well, yes. In a completely different field.

You are 'probably' facetious, and I was waiting for that midwit interpretation of my comment, though. 

37 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Well. If you pompously declare that 'science says' (which you obviously alluded) that kind of makes you the 'science says' guy, does it not?

 

No it doesn't. It makes me the guy who had a hypothesis and when you asked if there was any evidence I googled it for you. And there was zero pomposity.

 

37 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

You make a statement and expect no push-back

 

Its not about you providing "push back", its about you agreeing with the research I've alluded to or not agreeing. Both are your right.  Its not MY research, I'm not one of the researchers, if you wish to deliver some "push back" then get in touch with the researchers. I gave you my opinion, you asked for evidence, I went to the trouble of trying to find it for you. After I googled it for you, you decide to grill me like I'm in an interrogation. Its not normal behavior. Why you didn't just google it yourself, god only knows. 

 

37 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Don't misinterpret this as hostility. Not my intention at all.

 

Referring to me sarcastically as "the science guy" and demanding that I provide the research methodology as if I'm one of the researchers seems hostile to me. Not to mention calling another forum member a "midwit".

 

37 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

But it seems like I offend you when I question your 'Scientisms'?

 

No, sarcastic replies offend me, and repetitively posting about something we addressed in a friendly manner many many replies ago. And its not MY scientism. I held the opinion that it was related to empathy, you asked for evidence, I found what I could for you. If you don't accept it, great stuff, not my problem. 

 

37 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

If I was you I would point out where I was wrong in my critique and then we'll take it from there.

 

Show me where I was wrong? And if I was wrong, I don't care. It seems to be only you that cares enough to demolish this thread. It seems to be you that's obsessed with this and has a bee in his bonnet. 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by martin-w

4 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Well, yes. In a completely different field.

You are 'probably' facetious, and I was waiting for that midwit interpretation of my comment, though. 

 

So now you insult a fellow forum member by calling him a midwit. Are you trying to get banned?

 

Quote

Midwit

 

Urban Dictionary

https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=Mid...

 

 

 

Someone who is around average intelligence but is so opinionated and full of themselves that they think they're some kind of genius.

 

 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by martin-w

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

 

So now you insult a fellow forum member by calling him a midwit. Are you trying to get banned?

 

 

 

If I get banned by responding to an obviously facetious comment then I can live with that. No problems. Life exists outside of avsim. 

3 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

 

If I get banned by responding to an obviously facetious comment then I can live with that. No problems. Life exists outside of avsim. 

 

Okay, you are behaving in a very weird, unsavory manner. Not the sort of person I'm interested in. 

Thanks for ruining the thread.

I'm out. 

 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by martin-w

18 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

You are 'probably' facetious,

Not really. I was just responding further to this comment:

4 hours ago, Swe_Richard said:

If you please could give me materials and methods I could go deeper into this 'science'.

 

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by dmwalker

22 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Not really. I was just responding further to this comment:

 

Oh. Apologies then.

46 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Okay, you are behaving in a very weird, unsavory manner. Not the sort of person I'm interested in. 

Thanks for ruining the thread.

I'm out. 

 

What? For standing up for myself and not succumbing to the oh so common cargo culting of science you judge me an 'unsavoury person'? That's hilarious. 

That's quite enough. This thread has devolved into a measuring contest.