No kidding!!

[Necrosis]

I realize numbers are hard, dates harder, but maybe go back and check your sources, retard. For someone that is supposedly so smart, you are a fucking idiot. You might have AbrahamG fooled but the rest of us can see it.
It's load The pat on your head when it's done Maybe you just enjoy being a cheerleader for debauchery and faggotry
Hell if I know.

I gave you a chance but you refused. I tried to spare you. You could of avoided this.


The link you are referencing (I knew what your mistake was as soon as you cited it) is a link to one of the questionairres used in the study I posted. As you may have noticed I was speaking to dos equis. Now the link I posted is a breakdown of the questionairre with further references corroborating it.

I realize the date on that paper is different but its not a study so you are retard.  So you couldn't understand (both links are to the questionairres) that they were questionairres, not studies. This indicates that you either cannot read or are too lazy to look past the title, perhaps both.

So no, we aren't using studies from a decade ago as per your claim, as it wasn't a study at all. But you couldn't comprehend that. I even gave you an out lololol

I wouldn't dare fool you! it's honestly like beating up on a disabled person. Let me help you. I can guide you. My offer stands for 24 hours.

[chaos]

I gave you a chance but you refused. I tried to spare you. You could of avoided this.


The link you are referencing (I knew what your mistake was as soon as you cited it) is a link to one of the questionairres used in the study I posted. As you may have noticed I was speaking to dos equis. Now the link I posted is a breakdown of the questionairre with further references corroborating it.

I realize the date on that paper is different but its not a study so you are retard.  So you couldn't understand (both links are to the questionairres) that they were questionairres, not studies. This indicates that you either cannot read or are too lazy to look past the title, perhaps both.

So no, we aren't using studies from a decade ago as per your claim, as it wasn't a study at all. But you couldn't comprehend that. I even gave you an out lololol

I wouldn't dare fool you! it's honestly like beating up on a disabled person. Let me help you. I can guide you. My offer stands for 24 hours.

I know what the links are, I know what the papers are, I know what the scale is, your study used information from over a decade ago from a handful of people that self identified as "conservative" and denies the fact that science, especially something as made up and based on emotions as psychology, is fluid and ever changing. I find your "holier than thou, I'm so smart" behavior quite pathetic. I know there are several very smart people on getbig, you are not one of them.

[Necrosis]

I know what the links are, I know what the papers are, I know what the scale is, your study used information from over a decade ago from a handful of people that self identified as "conservative" and denies the fact that science, especially something as made up and based on emotions as psychology, is fluid and ever changing. I find your "holier than thou, I'm so smart" behavior quite pathetic. I know there are several very smart people on getbig, you are not one of them.

I did not, you are lying lol

The only paper there is from 2026.

I don't claim to be anything, but I do enjoy how much it upsets you.

I can't engage with what you said because its so far off base that it's pointless. The constructs conservative and liberal and not fluid as you suggest.

Psychology is also not made up unless you admit that everything is made up. I think you mean subjective vs objective, even then there is no such thing as that's like claiming there is a front and back to a wall that inherently exist. You ever see a front without a back? you ever see a down without an up. "objective" science is not objective at all, in fact the most objective physics got quite the shake up when quantum mechanics came on the scene.

There is no point is continuing this discussion. It was the questionairres from the study that I linked in the initial article thats from this year. The questionairres capture constructs that are not fluid overtime. Capitalism isn't psychology and it was the same 10 years ago as it was today save minor changes. This is the same thing as the constructs used in these questionairres, they are not malleable.

Emotions aren't even fluid like you suggest. It's like saying what anger was 10 years ago is different from anger today, such the object of anger may change but the emotion is the same qualia/qualitative dimension.

I will give you points for making some sense but alas it's all for naught.