No, you cut out parts of the study you didn't like, so either you didn't read it correctly which is possible or you just intentionally misrepresented the study.
No....I didn't cut anything out, I cited what I cited and in no way was it misrepresented. Hell I used the exact wording from the study. You are trying really hard to misrepresent what I said, and I'm not really sure why. Perhaps it's because interpersonal hostility just comes naturally to you....
Then you would have quoted the paper, you did not, you didn't even link it. Then you rejected the definition of the word from the paper for your own vague definition. So tell me, what does psychoticism mean to you?
LOL, no I didn't you simpleton, I used the wording from the paper and then explained it for you since you seemed to think the wording was confusing. I didn't reject the definition....again I keep telling you to go back and re-read what I said because your reading comprehension is absolutely pathetic. I'm honestly starting to wonder how you graduated high school operating on this low level. Since I can't count on you to go back and read things again, I'll spell it out for you again. Here's your dictionary type definition for psychoticism. Psychoticism is a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility. That's exactly how I used to word, because that's what the word means. It's not a word that is unique to the study....Psychoticism is one of the three traits used by the psychologist Hans Eysenck in his P–E–N model (psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism) model of personality.
More insults because that's all you have in the end... Can you tell me the definition of Psychoticism that the paper used or no?
Here's the edit you missed, the reason I'm "insulting" you is because you are coming across as a simpleton. Since I can't count on you to go back and read things again, I'll spell it out for you again. Here's your dictionary type definition for psychoticism. Psychoticism is a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility. That's exactly how I used to word, because that's what the word means. It's not a word that is unique to the study....Psychoticism is one of the three traits used by the psychologist Hans Eysenck in his P–E–N model (psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism) model of personality.
Right, but the paper doesn't use the dictionary definition, you 'simpleton'. https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/why-...orrect-a-simple-error-about-psychoticism.html The questions they asked for this study... No, I said you MEANT it as an insult, but being the 'simpleton' you are you don't realize that scientific definitions of words are often different from dictionary definitions of words.
You've gone out of your way to prove that you aren't the brightest person down here in the D&D, but you do realize that what you just cited showed that the paper was using the term “Psychoticism” as it was introduced by German psychologist Hans Eysenck.....and it was Hans Eysenck's definition that I used....the one I ALWAYS used, the one that you are responding to right now and suggesting that it is wrong. I try to work with you, but you just don't operate on a very high level and it causes tedious BS like this. I used psychoticism as the word is defined, you can decide for yourself if you think it is an insult or not. What you can't do is misrepresent what I said by failing to understand what the word means and where it comes from. I'm truly embarrassed for you that I've had to spell this out, so do yourself a favor and read more before trying to comment.
The issue is you are using the wiki instead of the own researchers that are telling you how they referred to the word, that's why I showed the questions asked, which contradict the way you've defined the word. Not only that, you are basically referring to an outdated study, a study whose claim to fame is being wrong. So there's that too...
So in your mind, the guy who coined the term doesn't know what the term he coined means? Brilliant job. You've convinced me. The study is old, but accurate and the fact that the findings were initially misreported doesn't change that. You'd do well to just admit that you screwed up and apologize for being foolish. That would be the end of it.
In my mind the researchers understand the definition of the word better than you or I and it is their study, they used specific questions according to definitions that they themselves had in mind. If the researchers say that psychoticism is referring to unicorns and rainbows then that's how the study should be read. But they made it pretty clear what they mean by using this word and even the original author of the word meant it in broader strokes, you just cut off the rest of the wiki to reach that point. That's why they don't use his model anymore apparently...doesn't mean anything bad on him, the job of science is to disprove previous scientists The issue is this... And since you are using Wiki.. In fact the study was trying to show, in the authors words... "Building upon a series of works by Thomas J. Bouchard, Lindon J. Eaves, Hans J. Eysenck and other contemporaries, we present strong evidence that the assumed causal relationship between personality and left–right ideology is too simplistic." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909004760
Can the two of you please do the rest of us a favor and shut the **** up? You sound like a couple of pre-teen girls.
I can't tell if it's that you don't consider social sciences to be science or if you aren't smart enough to understand that's what was being said. Given your posting history the latter is the most likely and that's just really sad. I wish you had better role models growing up so that you could do a better job when it comes to interacting with your betters. I suppose your mom did the best she could under the circumstances.
