[ SECRET POST #3266 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3266 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno. That's like saying, "I want to see a study that can prove that someone who's lost a child is more likely to sympathize with someone who has also lost a child than someone who hasn't."

Do studies get done on things that can be really really obvious?

I don't think AYRT is saying ONLY women can commiserate, just that the odds are REALLY more likely that someone with experience in something is more able to than someone who has only secondhand experience with it can.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

And by sympathize I meant empathize because I'm hungry and my brain is being poopy.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

A bit off topic but actually yes. Studies do get done on things that "are really obvious" because that's what studies do, provide evidence that proves or disproves hypotheses. Sometimes the results are surprising, sometimes the results are totally expected, but studies are done in order to have the numbers and stats and evidence there to point to, whether it's to support or disprove a belief.

People say psych studies that prove factually that "things everyone knows" are true are useless, but they're not; they're providing concrete stats to show that everyone is correct in certain beliefs.

"It is known (but there are no studies to prove it, just trust me, it is known)" is a really bad argument, scientifically speaking.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

okay, but, like, there is a point in discourse where asking for sources on things like that is not constructive

there are some things that you have to just accept as - at least - reasonable suppositions. there has to be a line. like, you can't reduce every internet argument to first-principles arguments about epistemology and ontology

unless you're Heidegger, I guess. Heidegger would totally fucking do that.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Oh I wasn't speaking up in defense of either side, I was answering AIRT's question about whether studies are done on "obvious" things and for what reason. Hence, off topic, purely about studies.

[(Anonymous)]

And as AYRT, thank you! I don't really follow studies or statistics or things like that outside of medicine (I play with drugs all day~) so it's cool to know that studies are getting done specifically to prove, "Yes what most of you think is correct/incorrect, stfu." XD

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

You're welcome! Fields like sociology and psychology get that question a ton :)

[(Anonymous)]

+100000