Calfredie01 t1_j1nf7zg wrote
Reply to comment by thruster_fuel69 in Childhood body mass index is unlikely to have a big impact on children's mood or behavioural disorders by giuliomagnifico
There are plenty of studies that are replicable and plenty that don’t rely on self reporting as well
As for self reporting, yes people lie, which is why we formulate questions and interview types that lead to less lies. However some studies are by definition going to need self reporting and that self reporting is literally what makes the most sense
I’ll give you an example of what I do. I’m in the field of Social Network Analysis. We blend together various methods and fields from neuroscience, to psychology, to graph theory, and more. We try to analyze the characteristics and behaviors of social networks and it’s different types and we are able to do so using things like math. However, when we want to see who all is in someone’s social networks, we can either observe them or just ask them. So usually the first person they’ll name is their wife and maybe their kids and what not and we can work with this data. There’s little to no reason to believe they’d lie about that and studies have shown that in some regards they don’t. Hell it’s quite funny because we will get brutally honest answers on anonymous surveys were people will mention their spouse, but also the person they’re having an affair with.
The underlying driver in social networks is that of the homophily principle. To sum it up, think birds of a feather flock together. You are more likely to marry, be friends with, get along with, etc people who have similar interests and appearances to your own. This may sound like common sense but for a long time people assumed that “oppposites attract”
This principle holds true in literally every single society we have studied ever. Even primitive societies hold true to this. My favorite explanation for this is that there’s less cognitive work involved in meeting similar people and thus you’re able to move through beginning stages of a relationship much sooner. So for instance, if you were an expert in this area like I am, this whole comment would be for nothing and we could discuss finer social network theories such as Blau space or information heuristics.
SNA is the backbone behind many things such as terrorist intelligence gathering, networks, and logistics, as well as other covert Social Networks. It’s also used in neuroscience when studying social information that is stored, as well as in emergency response protocols.
TL:DR we are trained scientists just like any other. We are aware of the foundations of science, it’s limits, and societies limits, and employ tricks to get around such things. You are mistaken with self reporting as research shows people get extremely honest with anonymous surveys. I’m not mad, but there’s enough misinformation about social science as is and how rigorous it is. In cross disciplinary meetings, more often than not it’s my lab that has to remind other scientists of some of the basics, simply because we have to be the most careful out of most disciplines.
Feudamonia t1_j1npsbw wrote
>You are more likely to marry, be friends with, get along with, etc people who have similar interests and appearances to your own. This may sound like common sense but for a long time people assumed that “oppposites attract”
>This principle holds true in literally every single society we have studied ever. Even primitive societies hold true to this. My favorite explanation for this is that there’s less cognitive work involved in meeting similar people and thus you’re able to move through beginning stages of a relationship much sooner.
I put it down to the familiarity principle which states people tend to develop a preference for what's familiar so people will automatically feel a person is more familiar if they have features and traits they recognise in themselves.
thruster_fuel69 t1_j1nghh4 wrote
Even if people are "honest" it's too subjective and interdependent on complex and personal dynamics that no one study will capture it properly.
I beg you to give me an example of a consistent, repeatable story that emerges from more than 2 social science studies. So far I just see you have strong opinions and love your job. That's great and all, but doesn't change my mind.
Calfredie01 t1_j1nhx18 wrote
Literally just look into the homophily principle as I stated. Maybe I should’ve mentioned that in the TL:DR. But that one has several countries and differing types of social circles it’s been studied in.
Another classic in my field is Granovetters “strength of weak ties”. It’s a classic but a little dated and was foundational for SNA. Brashears “The weakness of tie strength” modernized the theory and strengthened it. Those two studies and those related to them will cite multiple studies finding similar things.
Honestly your question is so easy to answer it leads me to believe that you’re likely parroting something some physics bro told you, but never actually looked into it yourself.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments