3 ms·

My mind also fired me a lot of "bullshit science warning" while reading this article. And, event though the argument "smart people have a bigger project and th

by gbersac 11y ago

My mind also fired me a lot of "bullshit science warning" while reading this article. And, event though the argument "smart people have a bigger project and they spend time realizing it rather than socializing" makes also sense for me, I don't really believe in it. Smart people may also spend time with friend to elaborate their plan and socializing in order to gather a group to execute that plan. Another explanation would be that they have more problem finding like minded people so they'd rather spend time alone than being with uninteresting people. Conclusion : if it is true that smart people need less time socializing to be happy than other people (psychology studies tend to always contradict each other, I don't rely on them too much), I don't have a serious explanation why.

troydavis 11y ago
tl;dr: Based on the information that's publicly available, which does not include the full text of the article, it passes the sniff test. Long: To take a stab at the study's scientific integrity without access to it[1], other aspects may be better indicators than a Washington Post article written for a mainstream audience -- namely, the journal's reputation and review policy, the author's CV, and the abstract. That's not anyone's fault, but the Post author's goal - an understandable explanation - doesn't emphasize what you're evaluating. So, let's check these things out. Here's the CV of the first named author (I can't easily tell whether he was PI): http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvita2015%20Li.pdf http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvit... The abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 A preview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf The entity behind the journal (which also grants licenses to psychologists in Britain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society ToC from the February issue: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.issue-1/issuetoc http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.iss... Peer reviewers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full He's a trained scientist with a lot of experience and many prior studies, and that this was published in a well-known peer-reviewed journal. Short of reading the actual article and having experience in the field, I think that's a more likely indicator of scientific integrity than the OP's URL. [1]: The full text of the article isn't publicly available. While drawing conclusions without reading it would be crazy, checking the author and the journal are reasonable.

by gbersac 11y ago

troydavis 11y ago

tl;dr: Based on the information that's publicly available, which does not include the full text of the article, it passes the sniff test. Long: To take a stab at the study's scientific integrity without access to it[1], other aspects may be better indicators than a Washington Post article written for a mainstream audience -- namely, the journal's reputation and review policy, the author's CV, and the abstract. That's not anyone's fault, but the Post author's goal - an understandable explanation - doesn't emphasize what you're evaluating. So, let's check these things out. Here's the CV of the first named author (I can't easily tell whether he was PI): http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvita2015%20Li.pdf http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvit... The abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 A preview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf The entity behind the journal (which also grants licenses to psychologists in Britain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society ToC from the February issue: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.issue-1/issuetoc http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.iss... Peer reviewers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full He's a trained scientist with a lot of experience and many prior studies, and that this was published in a well-known peer-reviewed journal. Short of reading the actual article and having experience in the field, I think that's a more likely indicator of scientific integrity than the OP's URL. [1]: The full text of the article isn't publicly available. While drawing conclusions without reading it would be crazy, checking the author and the journal are reasonable.