Post Reported for: Misinformation: no mention of 'deeply religious'
OP, can you cite where there was anything in the study regarding religiosity of the female subjects? I can't seem to get past the abstract. I tried Sci Hub, but didn't get anywhere either.
As I said to TheImpossible1, "God's love" is such an unscientific term that can't be well defined it has effectively no place in a scientific paper. You can't measure it or even properly identify it. It genuinely makes me think the screenshot is fake.
I believe that isn't actually from the paper, it's this person's summary of what's in it. The page appears legitimate, 44k followers and nobody questioning the veracity.
Even if you take that at face value, "Not All Women Are Like That", what are the chances? What is the risk? How much do you want to bet on any interaction?
OH? Dipshit? Really should I? Should i start with the ones that didn't have women voters around? Or weren't living in societies run and controlled by women?
Yes. Incredible though it seems, even you come from an unbroken line of winners. Looks like you will be the first loser who will be a genetic dead end, for which we can thank the heavens, by the way.
Society controlled by women? What a nutty thing to say.
It certainly is an answer as to whether or not one should make the a priori assumption that half the human population is 'not to be trusted'.
It's true that many more women now have their minds poisoned by identitarian victim ideologies. But same is true for everyone. One should look at the ideology.
If you want to ask about the nature of half the population, I'm sure he knows. Or maybe he's embittered if he's had 4 divorces and got screwed every time.
I mean, what would you expect. Men are visual creatures that are easy to manipulate with visuals. More than that... EVERYONE is easy to manipulate with visuals.
Seriously. Go around town normally. Record your experience. Then, shower, shave, wear a power suit, and genuinely gussy yourself up and get a hair cut. Put on a set of glasses if you don't own any. Record your experiences. Then, let your beard and hair grow, and go to those same places in a hoodie, pajamas, and flip flops. Record your experiences.
Not only will your experiences be wildly different, the people you saw in those places will think they were completely different people.
Seriously, try it out if you don't believe me.
Hell, just go to Walmart in a full business suit & tie with expensive looking watches or cuff-links. The store manager actually tried to help me shop once.
People will treat you wildly differently depending on how you carry yourself. That comic where the Kent family tries to show Clark how to disguise himself by slumping and wearing a hoodie is no fucking joke.
Post Reported for: Misinformation: no mention of 'deeply religious'
OP, can you cite where there was anything in the study regarding religiosity of the female subjects? I can't seem to get past the abstract. I tried Sci Hub, but didn't get anywhere either.
Someone else posted this:
Here's the psychologist who creates a summary of these papers who mentioned the religiousness of the individual - https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1383291092620042245?s=20
As I said to TheImpossible1, "God's love" is such an unscientific term that can't be well defined it has effectively no place in a scientific paper. You can't measure it or even properly identify it. It genuinely makes me think the screenshot is fake.
Yeah may be true; I don’t have an opinion on it really, I just was trying to help in case you didn’t see the other link.
I appreciate that.
Here's the psychologist who creates a summary of these papers who mentioned the religiousness of the individual -
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1383291092620042245?s=20
See my other two comments.
OP must have seen the actual paper somehow.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1383291092620042245
That seems really weird to put in a Scientific paper. It's not even a well defined term. That's suspicious enough that I'm not convinced it's real.
You'd have to define what "God's love" is in the paper in order for you to put that in the conclusion.
I believe that isn't actually from the paper, it's this person's summary of what's in it. The page appears legitimate, 44k followers and nobody questioning the veracity.
This just in: NO SHIT!
And if it doesn't work, straight to HR.
If that doesn't work, straight to false accusations and straight to a trial in a court of public opinion.
Trusting women in 2021? Not even once.
I wonder what the "not all women" types will say here.
Even if you take that at face value, "Not All Women Are Like That", what are the chances? What is the risk? How much do you want to bet on any interaction?
Ask all your male ancestors.
All my male ancestors were trans.
The patriarchy wins again!
OH? Dipshit? Really should I? Should i start with the ones that didn't have women voters around? Or weren't living in societies run and controlled by women?
Yes. Incredible though it seems, even you come from an unbroken line of winners. Looks like you will be the first loser who will be a genetic dead end, for which we can thank the heavens, by the way.
Society controlled by women? What a nutty thing to say.
That's not an answer. The system wasn't like this in 200 BC, or even 1200 AD.
So fix the system?
It certainly is an answer as to whether or not one should make the a priori assumption that half the human population is 'not to be trusted'.
It's true that many more women now have their minds poisoned by identitarian victim ideologies. But same is true for everyone. One should look at the ideology.
There's only one I can actually ask things but I doubt a retiree knows more about current sex politics than the shut-in who lives with him.
If you want to ask about the nature of half the population, I'm sure he knows. Or maybe he's embittered if he's had 4 divorces and got screwed every time.
But the data says "yes, all women".
Which data says that?
It's literally in the title. Even your perfect Christian women play dirty to get ahead.
To be fair, he is very, very stupid. It was kind of you to point out where tho.
You seem to really want to lose your third bet this week. Alright, then quote it.
Or were you really such a dumbass that you didn't even read past the title not even from the study, but the one this user made up?
Study finds: biology exists
I mean, what would you expect. Men are visual creatures that are easy to manipulate with visuals. More than that... EVERYONE is easy to manipulate with visuals.
Seriously. Go around town normally. Record your experience. Then, shower, shave, wear a power suit, and genuinely gussy yourself up and get a hair cut. Put on a set of glasses if you don't own any. Record your experiences. Then, let your beard and hair grow, and go to those same places in a hoodie, pajamas, and flip flops. Record your experiences.
Not only will your experiences be wildly different, the people you saw in those places will think they were completely different people.
Seriously, try it out if you don't believe me.
Hell, just go to Walmart in a full business suit & tie with expensive looking watches or cuff-links. The store manager actually tried to help me shop once.
People will treat you wildly differently depending on how you carry yourself. That comic where the Kent family tries to show Clark how to disguise himself by slumping and wearing a hoodie is no fucking joke.
Here's the psychologist who creates a summary of these papers who mentioned the religiousness of the individual -
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1383291092620042245?s=20
In other news, the sky is blue.
And?