189
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
189 points (95.2% liked)
News
35714 readers
633 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Editor’s note: In 2020, researchers from universities in the Netherlands and the United States replicated Oxley’s and his team’s study and concluded that: “Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait."
Nice of them to bury this editor's note 4/5ths of the way into the article lol
I wish I could see their full study — Paywalls hiding publicly-funded research... I just love it.
The next sentence further says, "Rather than studying unconscious responses as the ‘real’ predispositions, alignment between conscious and unconscious responses promise deeper insights in the emotional roots of ideology."
I'd need to see the study but it might suggest that there is indeed a subconscious difference in response but how that's mediated by other parts of the brain either remains the same or differs?
I apologize for missing that! I got really excited when I found that article because it seemed to cover it all so succinctly.
They're basically just saying they didn't find the same results and that using exclusively physiological responses to indicate "real" feelings is a dubious assumption. They're essentially calling for better studies that also involve reported cognition and sentiment ("conscious" responses).
That seems reasonable. It's weird that the article buried that so far into the summary though!
Understood, and I appreciate the clarification, but it does damage, or at least work against, the credibility of most of the body of the article, so I would likely not have used it if I'd noticed that as I went through.
Why would it damage most of the article? That was only a clarification on one study or subpoint.