[–] didntsayeeeee 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Of course it did. And if by chance the study had shown the opposite answer, I'm sure the researchers could have changed their methodology a bit and tried again til it gave the right answer.
Ain't social "science" wonderful?
[–] Drenki 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I'm not a religious person in any way, but the headline doesn't support the "science" that was performed.
What was measured they called "altruism", not "meanness". Their definition of altruism is completely retarded. If I give away all of my shit to someone, it's called altruism. They would not factor in the burden I would place on my family to make up for my dumbass decision. In other words, they've used a term with one of the longest philosophical histories with a simple "good/bad" meaning. It didn't occur to them that people might have different concepts of what constitutes altruism.
People in the US have a tendency to think the UK publications are any better. They are not. This headline is direct proof they can't even communicate the basics truthfully.
I cannot even recommend that you wipe your ass with The Guardian or Cell (the Elsevier journal that published it) because they are made of shit.
[–] Sergei_Potemkin 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
...already learned this from playing their religious school sports teams...
[–] Crashmarik 3 points 2 points 5 points (+5|-3) ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html
And yet religious adults are more charitable which is proved by actual data at the macro level
Likely a problem with a bad sociology study in this case.
[–] Slapyousilly 2 points 8 points 10 points (+10|-2) ago
Charitable causes include churches...................................not enough dots.......
[–] GumbyTM 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
Oh a study from Academia where they like religion about as much as the internet does. Honestly, as someone who just doesn't give a shit, the anti religion crowd needs to get over itself.
Anyone who has ever spent time with religious people vs the anti religion crowd knows who is more preferable.
One side is annoying because they want to share what makes them happy and the other side is annoying because they need to tear down what makes others happy, presumably so everyone is as miserable as they are or because their feelings are too fragile.
Which is worse?
[–] flapjack_charlie 4 points 3 points 7 points (+7|-4) ago
Oh Jesus Fuck Me In The Ass H Christ... I don't know what asshat came up with this study but it's the latest hit-piece against social conservatives. I've seen this saying that they're less altruistic, less intelligent, more authoritarian, etc. Now, I'm a liberal atheist so I don't really care that much about conservatives or religion, but I DO care about science and I DON'T like it when I see science being used to flog some dipshit's tired political agenda. We get it, everyone likes to feel self superior and this is a way atheists and liberals can feel superior to conservatives, which is more likely to get them to vote in an election year.
Well hey, guess what, I feel superior to everyone else because I actually think about what I read.
God, when did the Guardian become such a rag?
[–] Drenki 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
We are brothers, flapjack. I bothered too glance at some details in the other thread.
[–] celadarlie 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Oh Jesus Fuck Me In The Ass H Christ
Well said.
[–] alalzia ago
Children can be mean both by character and due to parenting or peer pressure . Research data can be used in various ways to prove or disprove anything.