5 ms·
I don't think you could be more wrong. Edit: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11421.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7
by Knufen 9y ago
I don't think you could be more wrong.
Edit: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11421.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature1...
- Boothroid 9y agoOne reference only does not an argument make.
- Knufen 9y agoWell considering that you made the original claim, the burden of proof is on you. A simple Google search will also show you are wrong.
- Boothroid 9y agoThe article isn't accessible so I cannot examine the methodology. Have you read it in full?
- gruez 9y agohttps://sci-hub.io/10.1038/nature11421 https://sci-hub.io/10.1038/nature11421
- Boothroid 9y agoDoesn't your link infringe copyright? 'Sci-Hub is a website with over 62 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by allowing access through educational institution proxies.'
- blakes 9y agoSo I assume that no reference makes even less an argument?
- erdle 9y agoFrom abstract: "The effect of social transmission on real-world voting was greater than the direct effect of the messages themselves, and nearly all the transmission occurred between ‘close friends’ who were more likely to have a face-to-face relationship. " So people that already were most likely aligned ideologically.