Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

elzzzbeth t1_j4c9s9a wrote

Every time an article that’s less shocking gets posted, the comment section is full of complaints about how obvious the findings are, how it’s pointless research, etc. Please remember that even the more apparent stuff is super important. We need this kind of evidence to support additional research, assessments, and treatment. We can’t just base these things off of our hunches.


idontknowwhynot t1_j4cfcrl wrote

What’s weird is I’ve always agreed with your statement, yet frequently catch myself doing it anyway. I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study on that…


serenityak77 t1_j4ctkh2 wrote

Yes they have actually. The results weren’t shocking at all and the people complained.


_mike_815 t1_j4df31d wrote

I don’t have gold to spend on your comment, otherwise you’d deserve gold. So I’ll just leave you a “nice”.


lookmeat t1_j4cfkee wrote

These are the same people who argue that almost everything is discovered but "accident". 90% of "accidental" discoveries I hear about is some scientist testing the assumed "obvious" case, and discovering it was actually wrong.

Some of the most revolutionary science discovery comes from research validating (and failing to) the "obvious" assumption.

And what does it add to say it's obvious? That we get to post ourselves in the back and say "I'm not a researcher doubt the actual work, but at least I knew that already"?


schietzs t1_j4dekjv wrote

This should be a sticky for every social science article that gets posted.


Igotz80HDnImWinning t1_j4cbzzn wrote

Absolutely! Being able to quantify something we all are familiar with but never used to have a severity system for helps us track improvement or worsening and measure/compare different treatments and therapies.


nogoodimthanks t1_j4e7cs5 wrote

Especially for women. There’s NO research out there about us, like not a smaller man, not a man with internal testicles, about women’s bodies and experiences so just let the research catch up. I mean damn, there’s enough science for everyone!


krysanthemom t1_j4ffprs wrote

Oh my god! This. I work in academia and the number of studies we do to confirm things we already “know”! But sometimes we disprove “common knowledge”…


The_Norfolkian t1_j4dqbsq wrote

There’s so much pressure in the academic community to ‘get published’ as a rite of passage and for maintaining ‘relevancy’ in one’s community, so it’s no surprise actual studies set out to confirm obvious truisms as a means to an end.


joeislandstranded t1_j4g583e wrote

I think it’s great when our collective hunches are affirmed! Results like these are good news, imo.


StuartGotz t1_j4dd2zs wrote

You're missing the point. The commenters are omniscient.


Falcofury t1_j4df2x7 wrote

How about we just curate all the boring crap?


lemoncats1 t1_j4f856y wrote

Having adhd, one of the most common things I heard is people assigning various things ( you use duo monitor so you are forgetful/ you eat sweet foods so you are forgetful etc). All outright doesn’t want to admit it’s adhd that it’s insane . Just because what’s on your observation doesn’t means it’s real


Snookn42 t1_j4ehkaq wrote

Im sorry but this is low hanging fruit designed to keep the grant money flowing for lazy psychologists who would rather write papers to get picked up by click bait news sites, than to do any actual research into human nature.


ThrowawayHotdog492 t1_j4cq8hh wrote


People who don’t like their body look at others for x reason ( e.g. jealous, comparison, examination ?). Whatever the reason it wasn’t something that warranted study because…. Realistically, personal stuff like this (prettiness, ugly, attractive , etc.) only applies to the small test group.

Basically the problem is, is that this info is pretty much useless because you would need a huge RELIABLE sample size ( e.g. eye tracker to see where someone looks immediately), has probably been tested dozens just nothing official or in this capacity and ultimately…. Probably could have been done as a High School senior level Psyche 1 presentation.

I say this as guy who likes data, analyzing results and fucks with my family by running little harmless experiments on them (moving things to see reactions, “hidden” stuff, how long until someone does x if I leave it y way)


NotReallyHere01 t1_j4ct2jf wrote

N≈3000 meta analysis, including gaze tracking that you require, isn't reliable?

Genuinely not trying to be a prick, but did you read the link? I'm not sure what your problem with it is...


StrangeCharmVote t1_j4czeii wrote

Personally having not read the link, could you tl;dr how the split in sample size was determined...

By which i mean, if joining the study is voluntary, how do we know the people doing so will 'randomly' be in one group or the other, and is the value self reported?


NotReallyHere01 t1_j4d0dsy wrote

I only skimmed it myself. But it's a meta-analysis of 34 other published studies, so the sampling methods would be found in each of those respective studies.

I was just confused as to why there was criticisms of the sample size (almost 3000 is usually considered decently representative so long as it's properly randomised as you highlight) and the methods (which specifically included gaze tracking). Not here to argue over anything other than those specific criticisms, both of which are answered in the first few paragraphs of the article.


StrangeCharmVote t1_j4d3743 wrote

Fair enough just thought i'd ask, as i can see at some level what the commenter may be getting at.

Also if it's a meta analysis of so many studies, wouldn't that mean each of the others on average had less than 100 participants? And that the studies must have been testing for, selecting, and accounting for different and more narrow kinds of results?

Anyways, doesn't matter. At some stage opening and reading the link would be required on my part i guess :P


NotReallyHere01 t1_j4d45d7 wrote

You're not wrong. And this isn't bulletproof. But small n studies are often needed on a particular subject in it's academic infancy almost like a proof of concept. A meta analysis like this helps expand or elucidate things that small n studies can't. They can all then be used to pitch for funding for the larger, more representative, more comprehensive studies.

In that framework, I see it as still very useful science, even if it's not entirely settled.