Religion
Related: About this forumQueen's study finds religion helps us gain self-control
http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/queens-study-finds-religion-helps-us-gain-self-control2012-01-24
[font size=3]Thinking about religion gives people more self-control on later, unrelated tasks; according to results from a series of recent Queens University study.
After unscrambling sentences containing religiously oriented words, participants in our studies exercised significantly more self-control, says psychology graduate student and lead researcher on the study, Kevin Rounding.
Study participants were given a sentence containing five words to unscramble. Some contained religious themes and others did not. After unscrambling the sentences, participants were asked to complete a number of tasks that required self-control enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses.
Participants who had unscrambled the sentences containing religious themes had more self-control in completing their tasks.
[/font][/font]
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)come up with the desired conclusion, namely:
"religion helps us gain self-control"
This "study" is a great example of how a poorly constructed "experiment" can fail to take into account so many other variables among the participants. Simple variables like age, verbal intelligence level, time of day and relative initial comfort of participants, to name just a few.
The report from the link fails to mention such critical information as:
number of participants, (2 or 2000?)
ages and similarities of participants, (are they 15 or 65?, college students or prisoners?)
religious background and training of participants, (or are any them not religiously affiliated at all?)
or even what the specific frustration tasks such as the "enduring discomfort" or "delayed gratification" actually were.
In other words, how do we know that the participants were all "otherwise equal" in abilities to perform any and all of these tasks?
Sounds like pseudo-science, at best, to me, and a very poorly constructed example at that.
There is also no link to the peer review of this study.
So I did a little Googling: I found Kevin Rounding, PhD candidate at Queens University, where he lists his already formed conclusions on none other than his own Linkedin page.
"In a secondary line of research, I study the influence of religion on flourishing and positive outcomes despite negative developmental trajectories. I am interested in how religion serves to buffer against the deleterious effects of parental depression and uncertainty regarding social interactions, and serves as a catalyst in the formation and strengthening of ego resources. By serving to moderate negative outcomes, and mediating negative relationships, religiosity is a powerful influence in people's lives, providing comfort and a source of self-control."
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kevinrounding
If this experiment were presented as part of a Ph.D. thesis, it would be torn apart for sloppiness of design.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I did find a better report of the study in a peer reviewed journal. The results are reported as preliminary and the experiments ongoing. The main researcher's statement above does read more like a foregone conclusion than a hypothesis he wishes to test.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/why-do-we-have-religion-anyway.html
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)From the original press release:
Until now, I believed religion was a matter of faith; people had little practical use for religion, Mr. Rounding explains. This research actually suggests that religion can serve a very useful function in society. People can turn to religion not just for transcendence and fears regarding death and an after-life but also for practical purposes.
Other members of the research team include psychology graduate student Albert Lee and Queens professors Jill Jacobson and Li-Jun Ji. The study was published in Psychological Science.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It just shows the effect of unscrambling religious themes. Did he test other non-religious philosophical themes? Perhaps unscrambling some Goethe would help in self-control, too.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)If this were an actual experiment, it would have to be conducted in a "double blind" fashion. That is: both all participants and all observers of the subsequent behaviors would be done by people who did NOT know which participants got which phrases to unscramble.
Of course, the most outrageous part of this "study" is the huge leap from a simple observation of the rather inconsequential behaviors of a group participants all the way to a wildly speculative conclusion that religion "helps us gain self-control". Another equally outrageous leap would have been to claim that "religion dulls the level of interest and involvement in certain tasks". Of course, neither speculation is a scientific "conclusion", simply an unsubstantiated speculation, or merely product of wishful thinking.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)At the core of most religions is some sort of code of conduct (e.g. The Law of Moses, Sharia law, Buddhisms Five Precepts, Confucianisms Five Constants, Taoisms Three Treasures.)
Of course religion is (at least in part) about self-control.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)be, is not, in the LEAST WAY, "common sense", nor anything related to actual "scientific" facts.
I really wish religious minds would try to focus more precisely, to b e able to separate what those thousands of religious fables, fairy tales and half truths have filled their minds, separate them from actual rational thinking.
This "Common sense" you claim, "Of course religion is (at least in part) about self-control" is nothing but what you have learned and CLAIM religion to be about. There is no science, there is the FABLE that "religion is, (at least in part) about self-control".
There is no scientific evidence to prove this, indeed there are literally MILLIONS of incidents where individuals and groups of people who CLAIM to be "religious" have LOST THEIR SELF CONTROL ! Those incidents are as anecdotal as those incidents where people CLAIM that their "religion" has something to do with their self control.
An analytic mind would be able to tell the difference between assertions of causal relationships and actual data that support direct cause/effect phenomena. Religious wishful thinking only serves to clog and fog up the religious believer's mind, and render them incapable of making the critical distinctions between direct evidence of cause/effect relationships, and what MIGHT WELL BE merely statistical patterns, (with any number of possible causes), one way or another.
Religious minds often seem incapable of doing the work of the critical thinking to sort out such issues, and merely rely upon simplistic expressions like "common sense" or "I just believe it's so, and no one can convince me otherwise".
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)I honestly dont know why youre so incensed!
Lets try this on for size:
A variety of religions are practiced by a large number of people in the world. The principles of natural selection seem to extend to ideas as well as to other traits (see memetics.) The widespread nature of religion suggests that there is some natural selection for it. (Just as there appears to be for altruism.)
However, given the diversity of religious thought, it does not appear that there is an overwhelmingly positive selection for one particular strain of religious thought over others. (For example, there does not appear to be a deity actively exterminating infidels.)
This research explores a simple idea regarding the selection for religion. It does not (for example) suggest that there is a God, who is pleased by faith, and rewards the faithful. It simply suggests that religion might aid self control.
The teaching of self control appears to be fundamental to most (if not all) strains of religious teaching (e.g. the Ethic of Reciprocity.)
One does not need to be a deist to accept the ethic of reciprocity, but, certainly, you can see that those deists who believe in a deity who rewards those who faithfully follow the ethic, and/or punishes those who do not, might reinforce the tendency to follow it, benefiting the group.
Why do you find that so upsetting?
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I am merely pointing out that there are many myths, fables, anecdotes, wive's tales and "traditional beliefs" that have no scientific basis, and are perhaps as often false or misleading.
I want sincerely religious believers to be able to employ the scientific method, rigorously, and honestly, and not rely upon their presumptions, their "beliefs" nor to assert that there their "hypotheses" are now "scientific theories".
Here is an example of an hypothesis: "The widespread nature of religion suggests that there is some natural selection for it. (Just as there appears to be for altruism.)"
That is all it is. There is no evidence offered for the truth of the matter. It is an hypothesis, a "suggestion".
Now one has to link that with the evidence in order to arrive at a truth. That is what the scientific methodology would require , in contrast to a widely held "belief" in the truth of the "suggestion". By use of the term "natural selection", you are employing what is a scientific concept, in a suggestive way, not a scientific way. The statement you have made begs the question: how do we "know"? The answer is: we do not "know", but some people simply want to "believe" it's true
NO I cannot see this assertion you have made:
" but, certainly, you can see that those deists who believe in a deity who rewards those who faithfully follow the ethic, and/or punishes those who do not, might reinforce the tendency to follow it, benefiting the group. "
History is replete with hundreds of examples of people whose belief in a deity led them to sacrifice a child on an altar, to go to war, to seek deadly and disastrous retribution against other tribes or other cultures. Hitler, himself, claimed a belief in god, so no, your assertion is not anywhere close to a truism, and certainly NOT scientifically based. It is only your assertion, based upon selectively chosen historical evidence. You are free to believe it, but it is not scientific fact, nor anything close to a "fact".
This is the intention on my post, not to be "incensed", I wish to point out foggy thinking and belief systems are nowhere near the level of rigorous and disciplined kinds of thinking that actual scientific investigation and discovery requires. I hope many religious believers can learn to employ the scientific method of thinking, and learn to distinguish between what is their "belief" and what might be "scientific fact".
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)In the posting I replied to, a number of things were in all caps (e.g. LOST THEIR SELF CONTROL !)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incense
- archaic : to cause (a passion or emotion) to become aroused
- to arouse the extreme anger or indignation of
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)a fact. It is a custom, and an opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)set of beliefs fables, half truths and fairy tales,
and stated that those beliefs just clog and fog one's mind,
and state that religious minds are incapable of critical thinking,
the likelihood of having a productive discussion go way down.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)of what makes up many religious beliefs, and what phenomena can go on when people use religiously-based beliefs to stand in the way of actual scientific fact-finding.
Let's just look at some examples. The belief in a geocentric universe, and the punishment Galileo suffered as a result of religious belief clouding and fogging a mind as great as the Pope.
Another example would be Mormonism's teachings about black people before 1974.
Religious belief today that gay people are under the spell of Satan.
Would you prefer we call them "fables" or "fairy tales" or "wives' tales" or just plain bunk?
There are thousands of religious beliefs and other "customs" and "wives' tales" that have been challenged by science. I suspect hundreds more of them remain in practice, and many religious believers hold those beliefs as if they were scientific facts.
I have never said that scientific thinking CANNOT take place in the minds of religious believers, but we have lots of evidence from history and from right here, that there is a willingness to place religious beliefs in front of actual scientific evidence and to use it to confuse and confound the rigorous discipline which makes up sound scientific investigation. (Example: having a belief in the power of religion and wishing to test for truth, without proper neutral observations or null set placebo controls).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and not to promote discussion.
I have not seen any evidence here that DU members are willing to place religious beliefs before actual scientific evidence.
Your pointing out that there is no report (yet) of the methods used in this study is accurate. Your follow up conclusions that because that information is not available, no neutral or null set placebo controls were used is not.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)you and I have agreed and not agreed beforehand. I am sorry if two members of DU see each other's intentions so differently, simply because we hold differing opinions.
I see no science here, and I state it, I see wishful thinking about a desired result, and phony science being staged to prop up the wished-for results.
As a long-time defender of rigorous use of proper scientific investigative techniques and procedures, I feel that I must speak up when such procedures are so blatantly violated for any desired agenda. I have spent half a lifetime teaching people proper ethical techniques in the social sciences, from research into education to racial and ethnic sociological investigations. I do not take kindly when I see such procedures so flagrantly violated over any system of prior beliefs.
If you wish to project your feelings of being insulted from my word choices, project them upon my "intent", you are free to do so, and I disagree, of course. You are free to believe whatever you like about me and what I state. You are also free to ignore my posts, to confront them with actual facts, or to move on to posts more "friendly" to your own opinions and beliefs.
If you have not "seen any evidence here that DU member are willing to place religious beliefs before actual scientific evidence", then I suggest you read the original post here, and several others in this thread, such as:
"Theyve done some simple experiments, which lend some credence to the theory." in post number 20.
They have done no such thing as "simple experiments" in a scientific framework. They have set up stawman hypotheses, and "suggestions" and arrived at premature conclusions based upon their own bias.
You might not agree, but I state what I do with some background in the field of scientific research methodologies.
Or you might look at THIS statement by the very person conducting this "study" found in post#4)This research actually suggests that religion can serve a very useful function in society. People can turn to religion not just for transcendence and fears regarding death and an after-life but also for practical purposes.
The "research" suggests no such thing. It suggests the researcher has a solid bias and agenda, and takes results he got from a faulty experiment structure and goes all the way to the 100 yard goal post to proudly state: "People can turn to religion not just for transcendence and fears regarding death and an after-life but also for practical purposes."
Here, again, are two examples of non-scientific wishful thinking being equated with scientific conclusive evidence. The evidence is flawed by a faulty technique, as well as by prior bias of the researcher, stated on his own Linked-in web site page.
I am sorry if you feel the need to impugn my motives here. But you are free to think of me whatever you wish. I don't wish to argue with a fellow DU'er over the need for rigorous scientific research methodologies, yet I won't allow wild claims of "scientific" validity as to the value of religion to go unchallenged, particularly when they are based upon rather questionable research methodologies and already evident bias on the part of the researcher.
I think we all should make a mental note of this Ph.D. candidate at Queens University. He might crop up a couple years from now proclaiming some new "evidence" of his own beliefs. What is already evident is that he cannot summarize his already faulty work in frameworks other than proclamations in his own words as to the value of religion. I hope someone up there at Queens University gets around to teaching him impartiality before awarding him a Ph.D.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You here and elsewhere have made some very valid points about scientific method, it's use and misuse and, sometimes, the general disregard of it.
I have no argument with you there. I am also a scientist. My only objection to some of the statements you were making here is that there is nothing to base an evaluation of the methods on. The actual study has not been released, only a brief press release. You could be very correct that this is sloppy and not to be taken seriously, but I would withhold judgement until I had more data.
You are absolutely right about those that use poor tools to try and prove their forgone conclusions. That's always a problem. As I noted previously, the primary author's statement seems to belie an preconceived conclusion, and that's never good in scientific research. But, again, I haven't seen the actual study, so I'm not sure what to conclude.
I enjoy discussing things with you at times. I do not enjoy it when the terms you use are vitriolic, broad brush and insulting to others that see some things differently than you do. Is your position about religion not dissimilar to the bias you see displayed by the primary investigator here? Have you not already reached your conclusion about religions and religious people? I realize that no one has given you any data that would lead you to believe that there might be something greater (whatever we want to call it), but I will also observe that no one has offered enough evidence to disprove it either, imo.
I don't really understand those that need to convince believers that they are wrong or otherwise flawed. They can take the same position you do - until someone can offer vigorous scientific evidence that the hypothesis they hold is unequivocally untrue, they are within their rights to continue to hold them.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)objections to my posts as long as you care to make them.
Now it's time for lunch, and I will be back with you later if I have more thoughts.
You ask a good question: do I have a bias against religion and why? What is my "evidence against"?
I will think about that. Oh yes, I have "evidence" against, but do I have "evidence" for? Am I being selective?
I will think about that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I just did my yoga and am feeling nicely calmed.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'm sure you can figure out just what kind of control it offers.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)in various religious followers' brain patterns, breathing, ability to stay underwater, basic physiological measures.
There's lots of "evidence" of this from all over the world, numerous studies, I haven't read many, but many are well constructed.
So, now, the ultimate question, are people who are "religiously inclined" more "physiologically" ammenable to learning how to control their breath, walk over hot coals, etc.?
Or did the religion they learned teach them that?
The same question could be asked of our participant in this experiment, but, unfortunately we don't know a single thing about the population being observed, no age, gender, education, location, etc. We know NOTHING about the people being studied.
We could assume that non-smokers do better at tests at 75 than smokers, but we would have to test for that, too. If this "experiment" were carried out with 75 year old smokers, I doubt we would get much positive results.....no matter what their religious beliefs. But that's just a guess, based upon my knowledge of smoking and it's effects upon old people.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)To paraphrase your second sentence, "Of course religion is (at least in part) about control.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I'm just indicating that it doesn't look like they have NEAR the necessary controls to make a claim any where close to that.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)As opposed to proof (for example.)
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)They have test for no other options. Perhaps unscrambling pithy Mark Twain epithets would help with self-control, too. They have no idea. Perhaps it is just that there is some sort of meaning to those could help it, too. Other studies indicate that self-control is a limited thing, so maybe they don't use any of it up with something that they already know.
To call it scientific evidence is a little bold.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)Talk about making unwarranted claims! You apparently didnt even read the 4 paragraph excerpt!
Study participants were given a sentence containing five words to unscramble. Some contained religious themes and others did not. After unscrambling the sentences, participants were asked to complete a number of tasks that required self-control enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)causal relationship demonstrated, among a thousand or so other possible variables.
Perhaps a little investigation in the nature of constructing experiments into human behaviors would be of benefit to some here who seem totally unschooled in the proper construction of what is a "scientific" experiment. The report on this activity at Queens University is a report about a very flawed and therefore "UN-scientific" experiment.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)evidence.
It's pseudo-science, at best.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)at this time as to what methods they have used. These broad assumptions about what they have and have not done in their experiments is totally bogus.
The study is underway, the results are preliminary and the reports are simply early reviews of the results.
So how do you know they didn't use the "scientific method"?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)To make such claims, as the "researchers" did, is NOT how the scientific method works. Thats how I know.
This is 7th grade science knowledge, cbayer. Here are some links to help get you up to speed, if you want to know more.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://sciencefairproject.virtualave.net/scientific_method.htm
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Take my word for it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)take my word for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You really shouldn't make claims that this study didn't follow the scientific method, as that information is not available at this time.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Do think, based on the available info, that the scientific method was used?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)on their methods that I can find.
But, it's a reputable institution with an excellent track record, so I suspect they did. Also, a respected peer reviewed journal reported the preliminary results, so I doubt this is just some goofy grad student who didn't use recognized experimental models.
But, again, no one is in a position to evaluate that before the study is actually published.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Based on the preliminary results that were released and reported in the article.
This is a discussion board, right? We are discussing what was presented for discussion by the OP.
If you feel that there is not enough info to have a meaningful discussion, perhaps your admonishment should be reserved for the OP for posting such a poorly informed article in the first place, no?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you feel that there IS enough info in the OP to have a discussion, then kindly stop admonishing my attempts to discuss it.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)press releases about scientific studies often get them VERY garbled. Both as regards their methodologies, and as regards their conclusions.
It may well be that these sweeping conclusions were made by the reporters; and that the main mistake of the researchers was that they didn't insist on seeing a draft report before it went to press.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And we are having a discussion that was prompted by the OP and the limited information it contained.
The poster had a reason to post this, we must assume that they wanted to discuss the article. That's what we are doing, no?
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)I wasn't saying otherwise. My 'dog in the race' is simply that I am a researcher myself, and, like other researchers whom I know, I have occasionally had my conclusions distorted by reporters.
My comments on this thread come from this perspective. I entirely agree, and have said in another post, that the study does NOT demonstrate that being religious causes generally greater self-control.
pinto
(106,886 posts)lead to a similar result? Increased focus, self-control. Maybe it's the process that's important here, not the content.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)Study participants were given a sentence containing five words to unscramble. Some contained religious themes and others did not. After unscrambling the sentences, participants were asked to complete a number of tasks that required self-control enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses.
Participants who had unscrambled the sentences containing religious themes had more self-control in completing their tasks.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Agree with Goblinmonger about the lack of controls.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)No claims were made here regarding rigorous experimental evidence:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/why-do-we-have-religion-anyway.html
But thats just one idea. There are many othersor make up your own. But they are all just theories. None has been empirically tested. A team of psychological scientists at Queens University, Ontario, is now offering a novel idea about the origin of religion, and whats more theyre delivering some preliminary scientific evidence to support their reasoning. Researcher Kevin Rounding and his colleagues are arguing that the primary purpose of religious belief is to enhance the basic cognitive process of self-control, which in turn promotes any number of valuable social behaviors.
They tested this theory in four fairly simple experiments
From the way you carry on, youd think theyd claimed to have conclusively proven the existence of a divinity or something.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)They say they have found "preliminary scientific evidence" for something. I am stating, and giving reasons why, that is seriously an over claim. You are the one trying, for some reason, to argue otherwise. Do you disagree with me? If not, then stop disagreeing with me. If you do, expect me to retort. That's pretty simple debate structure, isn't it?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)Theyve done some simple experiments, which lend some credence to the theory. They havent made any extravagant claims.
Youre trying to argue against them, but you clearly havent even bothered to read (or did not comprehend) a 4 paragraph excerpt from a press release which briefly describes the research.
Thats why I say youre desperate.
My only question is why are you so desperate?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Just like you calling this a theory. It isn't a theory. It is a pretty poorly constructed hypothesis which certainly has pre-experiment bias built into it and has been test with poor controls.
I understood things just fine. What have I misunderstood? Are you willing to admit that this is not "scientific evidence" as they claim or a "theory" as you claim? If not, then understand that I am going to point out the misuse of that information.
So I'm just supposed to let people make crappy claims and not say anything about it on a discussion forum? Seems kind of counterproductive to the "discussion" part.
So why are YOU so desperate to defend them?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12187379
Study participants were given a sentence containing five words to unscramble. Some contained religious themes and others did not. After unscrambling the sentences, participants were asked to complete a number of tasks that required self-control enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses.
How do you know, from this brief description that they did not (for example) use pithy Mark Twain epithets?
This isnt a scientific paper, its a press release. Theres no formal description of the procedures the researchers followed. Youre attempting to pick apart their methodologies, without really knowing what methods they used.
Hey, have a nice day. Im done.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)very poorly constructed "experiment", one that does not follow any of the basic tenets of what must be screened in and screened out for possible other variables in the observations.
We also see no evidence that the observers were unbiased in what they were observing. That is a fatal flaw, in the conduct of any experiment to "prove" or disprove an hypothesis. Does the expression "double blind" mean anything to you with regard to conducting scientific tests to prove one hypothesis or another?
Also, of note, there was no "placebo" or "null set" involved in this test. If it had been, we might find that some of the participants who were younger did better than those who were older, etc. This experiment was NOT science. Please try not to pretend it is anything other than NOT science.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)However, at least as it's reported, there was no attempt to make the nonreligious phrases comparable in terms of emotional content, or relationship to future planning, etc. Maybe, there was and the control conditions were not reported. But I would not find the results particularly convincing as regards the importance of religious content to the phrases unless there are such controls.
More generally, the reporter's summing up of the study is incorrect, as it is not saying that 'being religious makes you more self-controlled' but that exposure to religious content may affect performance (probably by already-religious people) in an experimental task.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)performance of tasks WITHOUT doing the unscrambling of anything!
The null set is NOTHING as a precursor.
I'm afraid I will have to ATTEMPT to verbally resurrect this "experiment", for those of us who may NOT be familiar with how to put something like this together.
Number one.... population... how many, where when and demographic, religious, and ethnic background, ages, educations, etc.
We need to know ranges of all of that.
Number two....what exactly were the tasks, the precursors to tasks, etc.?
Number three.....when was this done, over how many days weeks months years. (FOR EXAMPLE, social science experiments scheduled for September 11, 2001, were THROWN OUT in most experiments of this nature around the world, and many tests of this nature were thrown out for all of September in the greater NYC colleges and universities, can you guess why?)
Number four... who did the precursor tasks? Who did the follow-up tasks? Who observed each or both? We must screen for what we call the "Hawthorn effect", people who know that they are being observed perform differently. Likewise, the "Cinderella effect", and the "Stockholm effect"
Number five...what were the "rewards" for one behavior over another? Both on the precursor test and on the subsequent tests? Just verbal praise? What praise? Smiles? Gender of testers and testees? All of this has to be controlled for.
So NO...this had nothing to do with social science research, this has to do with an agenda, and a press release and no details, so it was, OF COURSE, re-published on a religious web site.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Because your argument failed several posts ago.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"Good for you" for espousing the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home" or "lalalalalala I'm not listening to you"? How about you admonish them for the same things you admonish ch about? How about telling the OP that they are making claims that are unsupported?
I really don't think I can think of a time when you have come down "admonishing" a believer in this forum like you do the atheists.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)would constitute something akin to consistency in one's position or opinion, and that leaves little to no room to move the goalposts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that really don't warrant a response. Kudos to anyone who chooses to step away once they determine that there is no point in continuing.
As to your second observation, you must not have been paying much attention to current events in regards to this group.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Its called "ignore". Use it liberally.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)But I'm a bit sick of people using 'have a nice day' as a means of dismissing other people's arguments. Why not just say 'I think you're wrong, but I don't choose to pursue the argument further'? It's what you mean, and frankly I'd find it much less snarky than this usage of 'have a nice day'.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)to any theory.
That is what GM is saying, you seem to be arguing otherwise. Either agree with him, or don't and provide YOUR reasoning that this "study" is valid in any sense.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)It has apparently been around since early in the history of man. It seems probable that some aspects of religion have been selected for. The common themes through much of religious myth also indicate that it can tell us a lot about who we think we are and where we fit into the world.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Your last sentence is a whopper, too.
"The common themes through much of religious myth also indicate that it can tell us a lot about who we think we are and where we fit into the world."
What does THAT mean? We are "Jewish" because of the myths we believe in? We are "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu" because of the myths we believe in? We are "who we are" and we know "where we fit in the world", because of the religion we believe in? The same could be said about the fact of our birth, or our geographic location during childhood, and the influences from the adults around us.
I honestly have no idea what that sentence is intended to mean
Jim__
(14,045 posts)Lacking a coherent reference, I can say that the "evidence" for my opinion that the study of religion and its effects is fascinating is my awareness of what I think.
Evidence that religion has been around since the early history of man can be found in Wade's The Faith Instinct
Evidence that some aspects of religion have been selected for can be found in Boyer's Religion Explained.
Evidence that mythology can tell us about who we are can be found in Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)That's all it takes?
I still have no idea what this phrase means "mythology can tell us about who we are ".
Jim__
(14,045 posts)If you are unfamiliar with them, then you must not be very conversant with religious studies. Those 3 books would familiarize you with the arguments. All 3 books have extensive references if you are interested in delving deeper.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)evidence.
Sorry if you feel I have not read widely in religious mythologies. Campbell, I think, is the only author with which I have some familiarity from my freshman college course in mythologies.
There is no "evidence" in ANY form of argument. There is only opinion.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)The books I cited make the arguments and offer supporting evidence.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)The sort of 'self-control' tasks that are likely to be used in psychology experiments tend to involve planning for a long-term goal, and inhibiting responses that might be more immediately gratifying but detract from the goal. Thus, they tend to involve attention and the ability to keep a goal in mind while acting toward its fulfilment - the sort of thing that comes under the umbrella term of 'executive function' - much more than any moral aspect.
It may be that religious phrases focus attention more than neutral phrases. It may even be that as many people associate religion with long-term planning (from 'if I do X I'm more likely to go to Heaven' to 'these are my goals for spiritual growth'), the religious phrases lead, while in that context, to a greater tendency to focus on long-term goals. It may be that any phrase that relates to something emotionally important to an individual (e.g. concerning close family members) or to long-term planning (e.g. studies or career) may put people into a less impulsive, more goal-oriented, and/or more attentive mindset. In order to draw conclusions from the study, it would be necessary to compare the religious phrases with other emotionally important or goal-related phrases, and not just neutral phrases. Also, it is important to see whether religious people react differently from nonreligious people. It may be that some of these controls were included in the study, but the report doesn't say so.
In any case, 'Thinking about religious sentences makes people act less impulsively in an experimental task' is not the same thing as saying 'Religion generally improves people's self-control'.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And then you argued that we were wrong.
What gives?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)providing the same level of self control isn't on point with what you just said was a great point? Again, I am noticing a non-scientifically tested trend in your "good jobs" and "bad jobs."
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)seeks to be that I mentioned a lack of certainty as to whether it was the researchers or the reporter who was being unscientific. My bias here is that I'm myself a researcher, and have observed press misrepresentations of research.
Otherwise, I think my points were similar, unless you're referring to a different argument.
I think I sometimes 'get away with things' (on DU in general, not just this forum), because I'm not American, and therefore my arguments don't fit into the usual American framework and therefore don't arouse certain learned aversive responses! It's convenient for me, but probably not always fair.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't see any evidence that would lead me to put much credence in this study at all. Then again, I don't have the data I would need to dismiss it, either. There is just no there there until the actual study is released.
The other difference may be cultural, but I doubt it. You made your argument without dismissing, denigrating or mocking those that might disagree. You made points that could begin a discussion. The tone was different.
FWIW, my husband is British, so I am fairly immune to the use of the British framework, lol.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Grope and layman being the operative conditions...