Yes, but someone baselessly speculating is different than researchers conclusions, yes? And my response leads to deeper thinking about the possible explanations than thought terminating assumptions, no?
Also, no, subjects were more likely to offer their seat even if they didn’t see batman, meaning it was seeing the change in others brought by the shocking individual that made others more cognizant of their surroundings, rather than needing to directly see the shocking stimulus. See? By trying to make their assumption fit the outcome, you missed information that was in the paper that disagreed with you. That’s why curiosity is more valuable than needing to be right.
Can you not just correct someone without being passive-aggressive about it?
You just brought huge value to the thread and I’ve learned a lot about the study that I never would have gotten from the caption alone and I’m grateful to your insight about it. It’s something that I otherwise wouldn’t have pursued deeper due to limited interest, so why do you have to be so nasty about it?
Comrade, I have ASD and while I’m aware I’m perceived that way, it’s either talk like this sometimes or never say anything ever again. I am constantly putting effort into not looking like a condescending ass, so think of how far I have to edit this shit before it comes out of my mouth in order for me to come off as slightly high and mighty.
It’s honestly borderline crippling and I have literally driven myself mad over my inability to be understood before.
I’m a very jovial person and that comes across in my off-screen interpersonal interactions, but I can’t get that to come across in the wild west of internet comments.
But yeah, I’m working on it. Sorry about the assholeishness
Yes, but someone baselessly speculating is different than researchers conclusions, yes? And my response leads to deeper thinking about the possible explanations than thought terminating assumptions, no?
Also, no, subjects were more likely to offer their seat even if they didn’t see batman, meaning it was seeing the change in others brought by the shocking individual that made others more cognizant of their surroundings, rather than needing to directly see the shocking stimulus. See? By trying to make their assumption fit the outcome, you missed information that was in the paper that disagreed with you. That’s why curiosity is more valuable than needing to be right.
Can you not just correct someone without being passive-aggressive about it?
You just brought huge value to the thread and I’ve learned a lot about the study that I never would have gotten from the caption alone and I’m grateful to your insight about it. It’s something that I otherwise wouldn’t have pursued deeper due to limited interest, so why do you have to be so nasty about it?
Comrade, I have ASD and while I’m aware I’m perceived that way, it’s either talk like this sometimes or never say anything ever again. I am constantly putting effort into not looking like a condescending ass, so think of how far I have to edit this shit before it comes out of my mouth in order for me to come off as slightly high and mighty.
It’s honestly borderline crippling and I have literally driven myself mad over my inability to be understood before.
I’m a very jovial person and that comes across in my off-screen interpersonal interactions, but I can’t get that to come across in the wild west of internet comments.
But yeah, I’m working on it. Sorry about the assholeishness
well, alright, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – I get that tone is hard to convey properly over the internet. Have a good day!
Thanks! You as well!
You seem very needlessly hostile to me. Is there a reason you’re being a dick? Have I offended you in some way?
All I did was confirm that the scientists think batman appearing got people to focus more on their surroundings.
Nah, man. Sorry about that. I was trying to be big and silly to demonstrate my point and the reason for it. Unintentional assholery, sorry again.