>12>20Anyone else annoyed by the sloppiness/conservative bias of this graph? If scaled properly both would have 20 as red/max, making conservatives have yellow(12) colored preferences at most and no orange or red preferences. I tried pointing this out on /pol/ but only got idiotic responses of people that didn't even read my post, let's hope/see if /sci/ has a better attention span. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6763434/
>graph tell a liemany such cases
>>16520085Is this from an actual study?
>>16520057you are a fucking retard and have no idea what you are talking aboutall you retard saw is different numbers so you started crying like the retarded musk lowing wannabe nazi faggot you are, the graphs would be the same if "scaled properly" you fucking retardthere's a reason why you retard can't even explain the graph, you retard have no idea what it even means, go back to pol retarded faggot and cry there
>>16520057Guess it's a matter of personal interpretation of what it would mean if they were on the same scale. To me it makes leftists look even more unhinged for loving rocks and distant galaxies more than they love their families while the change you're asking for would make conservatives look more evenly balanced and consistent. >/pol/If I was over there, I'd troll you for being a crybaby. It goes with the territory. Grow a spine and cut off those bitch tits.>>16520099Yes, reverse image search should get you a link. What I've never understood, maybe because I haven't put any effort into it, is why it's a polar graph? The angle from the center doesn't seem to encode any information.
>>16520193IIRC, the study includes a link to download the raw data so if someone wanted to make their own graph, it would be trivial to do so. OP, why don't you make your own graph that meets your high standards for scale consistency?
>>16520114>all you saw is different numbers I didn't.>the graphs would be the same if "scaled properly"No it wouldn't. >>16520193>reverse image search Yandex, Tineye and Google gave me nothing. Got a source?>>16520194>high standards How are these high standards?
>>16520208just like from you fucking retard because there's nothing wrong with it and you retard can't disprove it
>>16520231>there's nothing wrong with itYes there is, explained in OP
>>16520232>>16520205there's nothing wrong with it you fucking retard and you have no idea what the graph means you retard
>>16520235Namecalling and denial are not counter arguments
>>16520057You're a dumb faggot. They're "scaled" the same, conservatives just have a lower peak than liberals.
seething faggot OP aside, there was one real misconception associated with this graph, the preferences the survey was asking for wasn't where the participants felt the most empathy, it was for where their empathy runs out. i didnt look at the study paper recently but you can find the questionnaire they used in the survey and the wording is very clear about it.conservatives basically feel much less empathy for people and living things once you move out of the scope of their country. liberals reported their empathy extends out to animals, amoebas, and even dumb stuff like rocks.
>>16520205THREE FUCKING SECONDS TO FIND YOU WORTHLESS SACK OF SHIT!https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0
>>16520057>Anyone else annoyed by the sloppiness/conservative bias of this graph?No just you>If scaled properly both would have 20 as red/maxBy your standards, that would be an absolute comparison and not a normalized comparison which is what the image is. It shows you information about the spread of a population more than it's absolute difference which is probably what this paper was exploring (not that I read it).>making conservatives have yellow(12) colored preferences at most and no orange or red preferencesWhen comparing to the opposing scale, which is the incorrect scale for the domain because it's been normalized to a different group. The red peak for the left graph is between rings 3 and 4, ironically if it were absolute like you wanted I probably couldn't have pointed that out.>I tried pointing this out on /pol/ but only got idiotic responses of people that didn't even read my postI believe that you believe that>let's hope/see if /sci/ has a better attention spanA fantastic one; you made up a bias in your head and got angry about it that's the answer.
>>16520252No, the real misconception associated with the entire study, is trying to apply it to non-USA countries.>The United States was the focus of the present work, but we acknowledge that other countries could show differing patterns. Though you could also talk about the representativeness concern that they have.>The present research used participants samples from platforms that were not necessarily representative and contained more political liberals than conservatives. Everything you talked about was nonsense.
>>16520208>>>/pol/
>>16520334Probably a zoomer. I'm constantly amazed at how limited their research skills are for even the most basic and obvious information.
>>16521401Its weird that there are so many people who only want to discuss politics who come to /sci/ to do so. Is it possible that a rational explanation exists for that type of behavior?
>>16522450thats an interesting graphic about how liberals hate people similar to themselves, but how come female liberals hate men? if men are dissimilar to themselves then they should hate women more than men.
If you're the type of braindead nerd who needs a chart to convince him to be racist then frankly you're not a real peckerwood.
>>16520057>pointing this out on /pol/ but only got idiotic responses of people that didn't even read my postYou've only got yourself to blame.This is first year college shit. Of course you have to have the same color scale, otherwise it's not comparable at best and usually, people will assume your trying to lie with such graphs.
>>16522450The graphs are just utter shit in general btw. How this passes peer review, in Nature even, is beyond me.
>>16524494you dislike the content of those charts because you find them emotionally upsetting
>>16524825No, I am a scientist who peer reviews other works and who gets his own works peer-reviewed. Those graphs are shit for various reasons and should not have been published in a journal taking itself seriously.
>>16520057Then plot a new version of it using the proper scale. There were probably reasons they laid it out like this but it would be insightful to see that part of this is that the conservative mindset is just milquetoast about a lot of things.
>>16524943you dislike the content of those charts because you find them emotionally upsetting and you invent 'scientific' reasons to justify your dislike as a means of satisfying your emotional desires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)>Rationalization is a defense mechanism (ego defense) in which apparent logical reasons are given to justify behavior that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses
>>16524943>Those graphs are shit for various reasons and should not have been published in a journal taking itself seriously.you are a retard who has no idea how those graphs work
>>16520205>>the graphs would be the same if "scaled properly">No it wouldn't.Explain in your own words why you think that.
>>16525541>because you find them emotionally upsettingWhat makes you think so? I have not stated my opinion on the content anywhere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_projection>>16525542Yawn. Samefagging hard today.
>>16520057>let's hope/see if /sci/ has a better attention span. You got your answer here. /sci/ has been /pol/s extended rectum for quite some years now.
>>16525628>muh defense mechanism (ego defense) in which i give apparently logical reasons to justify behavior that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses>muh defense mechanism (ego defense) in which i give apparently logical reasons to justify behavior that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses muffugguh
>>16525724>no argument Why are you replying? The graph is objectively made in a disingenuous way. If you cannot refute the arguments made itt, what are you gaining from such baseless contrarianism?
>>16524089>but how come female liberals hate men?they envy and men and wish they were men, which means they admire men, its themselves they loathe
>>16526016>The graph is objectively made in a disingenuous way.The journal article link has been posted ITT. That data source has been posted. Take five minutes to make your own graph that's accurate if you're so angry over how the data was presented. But we both know you won't. Disingenuous would have been if the scale wasn't labeled. But it was labeled. Clearly labeled. You want to find some sneaky deception where none exists. Put up or shut up. Show us your version of what it should look like. Normal people were able to real the label. /x/ obsessives were able to find conspiracy in their heads.
>>16526864>To criticize my cake you have to bake your own cake I bet you never cooked ha!Sorry, but you seem really dumb. The intention of images is to present to the viewer an immediate information that can be internalized quickly. Not aligning scales abuses this very clearly and overestimates effects inappropriately. You have never worked in any scientific or adjacent field. So why would I waste my time with something so obvious?
>>16526864Not him, but the data they posted is useless. It contains (I guess) coordinates on a grid. They mention nowhere how the graph was created or what the angle encodes or where the circles are etc etc
Oikophobia:>>16520057Picrel describes exactly the type of insanity described by by the right side chart in OP & in >>16522450
>>16524494The graph is fine. Obviously it's a gradient where red is maximum and green is minimum. It's meant to display relative values within the group, not relative values outside of the group.
>>16528788interesting. why do you think it is that xenophobia is a common word used by the media and in classrooms even down the elementary school level while it's polar opposite - oikophobia - is almost completely unknown and never uttered?
>>16530203pure coincidence, stop circulating antisemitic conspiracy theories
>>16528788never heard of that one before
>>16524123science incessantly confirms that racism is the one true ideology
>>16534737Evolution is unironically a racist theory.
>Most “mentally ill” people are on the political left, Harvard professor Arthur Brooks explained last year. In 2016, the American Journal of Political Science reported that liberal political beliefs are linked to psychoticism. A decade earlier, radio legend Dr. Michael Savage released his eyebrow-raising book Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. But could it really be that there’s an association between ideological orientation and psychological disturbance?https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/
>>16520193>What I've never understood, maybe because I haven't put any effort into it, is why it's a polar graph? The angle from the center doesn't seem to encode any information.The data was collected by having mechanical turk participants click on that diagram, with concentric circles labeled along a diagonal, to indicate the extent of their moral circle. The heat map shows where they actually clicked when so prompted. The angular component, then, simply encodes participants' tendencies to click northwest or southeast of the numeric label they were aiming for.It strikes me as an extremely silly way to collect and present data, but at least it's silly in a mercifully transparent way.
>>16520057The colors are meant to show the hottest part relative to the coldest part.
>>16535873what them all suddenly stop trusting the science the second they see that
>>16520193It DOES NOT mean that [US, it's a US sample] liberals love rocks more than their families. It means that they give them consideration. Conservatives, otoh, mostly don't care past their local community.
>>16524089It DOES NOT mean that [US, ti's a US sample] liberals hate similar people. It means that they are much more likely to care for dissimilar people.
>>16520099are you retarded?
>>16520193>why it's a polar graph?fits in a square better
>>16523307science and politics are strongly linked because what can be claimed as truth can be used to sway mindsEugenics and it's necessity to prevent civilizational collapse due to inherent dysgenic selection pressures should be accepted by mainstream science. It isn't because that harms the current politics.
>>16524494>How this passes peer review, in Nature evenBecause Nature, and what is counted as peer review are not as high quality as you have been led to believe. Unfortunately this probably means you'll have to review the cited works of the literature to hold faith in it.
>>16528788This condition increases prevalence in a population which is experiencing civilizational decline because both this condition and the root cause of decline are caused by genetics which increase in prevalence due to dysgenic breeding allowed by civilization.
>>16538212>much more likely to care for dissimilar rocks.FTFY
excuse me, has OP presented yet the correctly scaled version of the graph?
>>16538935No, because even though the data is available, all of us are too lazy to do anything with it. Or more accurately, don't care enough to do anything with it because we are able to interpret it correctly.
>>16538212Why would they hate people similar to themselves? Why do they consider themselves so loathsome? Why don't they do anything to improve themselves?
>>16538205It just means liberals care about rocks just as much as they care about their grandparents.
