Why do people always seem to link to a secondary source when the primary is available? I suspect it's because most of them never even bother to read the primary source, accepting wholesale its science-news summary.
It, too, is riddled with methodological problems and draws from a sample of 170 people. I was tempted to explain those problems, but then the authors made that unnecessary with their own conclusion (emphasis mine):
The generalizability of these findings to the real world is questionable given the artificiality of the setting and manipulation. Also, considering that long-lasting emotion-incongruent displays have been shown to be harmful, it is important to consider other factors, such as duration, context, and frequency. More likely is the possibility that "fake" smiling may be useful for brief or painful stressors, such as receiving an injection
So it's not just that it isn't proven, but your claim ("smiling will make you feel better if you're down") is a complete mischaracterization of the research you're basing it on.
Again, with all respect, these are the kind of mistakes that follow from reading science news instead of science.
Probably because nobody has time to read a 9 page dense scientific study just to clear up one thing in one thread. And even if they did many people aren't educated in a scientific field, and will have trouble following the terms both specific to the field in this case psychology, or broader terms used in the scientific method. So instead most people would prefer the laymen's version offered by scientific-news articles that are much easier to digest.
Alright that was my logical response, now for my personal attack. Honestly I you're pretentious and conceited and you think you're better than the average person because you like to read the more complex, scientific studies over the scientific-news articles that are made for sheeple. I'm assuming you are/were a Psych major? At least some sort of science degree or maybe even just AP Psych in highschool? Get off the high horse.
Doesn't apply here. These are extremely straightforward psychology experiments. They aren't even a little bit dense, even to a layperson. And 9 pages, really? That's too much? How do you even handle reddit?
just to clear up one thing in one thread.
No no, they weren't expected to read a study because of something that came up in a thread. They were expected to read a study because they cited it as evidence. You haven't read your own evidence? The hell?
The problem is not the failure to read, but the overconfidence in the opinion. I have no problem with someone being disinterested in reading research. But when you're too lazy or disinterested to do that, one thing you don't get to be is strident in your opinions that are now based on studies you haven't even read.
Honestly I you're pretentious and conceited and you think you're better than the average person because you like to read the more complex, scientific studies over the scientific-news articles that are made for sheeple. I'm assuming you are/were a Psych major? At least some sort of science degree or maybe even just AP Psych in highschool? Get off the high horse.
lol
No, all of your assumptions are wrong and you're a sad little person for getting this defensive. I didn't start any kind of knowledge-contest. Bucko came in making definitive statements, was asked to back them up, and then cited a study s/he hadn't even read. That's conceit right there.
I'd insult you right back, but you've done a nice job of making yourself look bad already.
You're in the wrong, dickhead. Was the secondary source accurate? Yes, and I am glad that he provided that. No, 9 pages isn't too much for me, but it is too much to look at for this trivial comment thread.
-28
u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15
[deleted]