4 ms·
Has no one noticed that there seems to be no control group in this study? Every participant wrote a statement that got torn to shreds; every participant had to
by rlue 2y ago
Has no one noticed that there seems to be no control group in this study? Every participant wrote a statement that got torn to shreds; every participant had to write their emotions about it.
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that watching cartoons for ten minutes or just sitting in silence would produce a comparable reduction in anger. Really disappointing that a pair of career academics could get away with such an astounding oversight (and get published in Nature, no less).
- galleywest200 2y agoBased on the graphs presented in this study, it seems not everyone had one shredded or destroyed. Some had the letters retained.
- rlue 2y agoThat was a figure of speech meaning “to receive very harsh criticism”.
- resource_waste 2y agoOuch, Nature publishing pop science. A few years ago my PhD/Academia Engineer path cousin validated if a study was 'real' by simply looking at the word Nature. I thought this was absurd and scrolled down to methods/data. I had never heard of Nature before, or rather, I had no reason to trust it. I find it interesting/unfortunate Academia can get away with being Authority based.
- azinman2 2y agoThere’s no reason to throw away authority. Should something be not questioned because it was published in Nature? No, of course not. But should it be given the benefit of doubt? For sure. It’s extremely difficult to publish in nature, with a super rigorous process behind it. Peoples careers are made by publishing in such a journal, and extremely few are so lucky. Not all journals or researchers are equal. Reputation is an important filter. In the very long run truth will emerge. In the short term, however, it’s one of our best signals.
- resource_waste 2y ago>There’s no reason to throw away authority The Catholic Church appreciates your confidence. Science weeps.
- woooooo 2y agoEveryone uses heuristics to save time and attention. In theory, being published in a top journal means multiple specialists in the subject matter reviewed the paper and therefore it's more trustworthy than a random authority's assertion.
- resource_waste 2y agoThat is the conventional thing they taught us in school. Reality is more Yikes.
- fnordian_slip 2y agoAs krastanov pointed out in the comment above you, "Scientific Reports" is not the same as publishing in "Nature" itself. But about your cousin's method: If you have never heard of "Nature" even though it is one of the biggest names out there, then you have no reason to trust it, of course. On the other hand, if you have already read hundreds of papers published by them in your field, and those were above average in quality, trusting that name does make a lot of sense imho.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y agoIf the effect you're testing is that throwing away a piece of paper subdues anger, then those who don't are the control group.
- krastanov 2y agoIt got published in "Scientific Reports", not in "Nature". Scientific Reports is a journal that belongs to the Nature Publishing Group, *but* it is a known low-impact journal. When you get your acceptance-for-publication confirmation in that journal you are specifically told to never refer to it as "Nature's Scientific Reports", rather only as "Scientific Reports", so even their own publishing group does not want to associate too closely with it (to avoid risking its brand value)
- everybodyknows 2y agoAnd yet the website domain name is "nature.com", not even a HTTP subdomain involved.