4 ms·
The article mentions the "research" which, even though I think self-introspection is worthwhile, is extremely subjective and the self-measurements would influen
by waynecochran 7y ago
The article mentions the "research" which, even though I think self-introspection is worthwhile, is extremely subjective and the self-measurements would influence the results. I wish social studies like these had other terms so that it wouldn't be conflated with real science.
- slips 7y agoWhat would you classify as "real" science? Be cautious of dismissing research because it doesn't fit into your personal definition of reality.
- waynecochran 7y agoQuantifiable, repeatable, falsifiable theory that is peer reviewed and forms a foundation for other theory. Physics is at the peak of hard science. Social science is a worthy endeavor, but it belongs in a different category.
- khr 7y agoSure, there is subjectivity in the ways researchers operationalize the concepts that they study. That doesn't mean that their research is not "real science". If the study is of sound design and the result is replicable, it ought to be called science. Regarding the self-measurements influencing the results: the wisdom in the participants' reasoning (the dependent variable in the focal study) was evaluated by two independent hypothesis-blind raters. This seems like a pretty solid evaluation of the participants which should be immune to anything but the manipulation the researchers employed (the diary conditions). I am not sure what self-measurement you are concerned about.