🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:24:18 UTC No. 16563133

back to pol retard

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:28:38 UTC No. 16563137

>reeeeeeee /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:34:07 UTC No. 16563142

>>16563132
/his/

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:35:22 UTC No. 16563144

>>16563137
you are a retard

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:42:16 UTC No. 16563150

>>16563144
Do you have anything to contribute other than namecalling?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 03:31:09 UTC No. 16563176

>Different scales reeeeeee

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 04:37:14 UTC No. 16563223

>>16563132
technically, I believe women ARE human
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjc1AFpqIw0

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 10:09:43 UTC No. 16563353

>>16563132
Nothing outside of consciousness is valuable.
so no, they're not more valuable than anything.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:05:10 UTC No. 16563384

>>16563132
Here let me post the rest of that quote for you:
>The categories allowed us to create composite moral allocation scores for humans only (average of units allocated to the first nine categories) and for nonhumans (average of units allocated to the last seven categories).
>In addition, participants also completed a more qualitative measure of the extent of their moral circle by clicking on rungs extending outward and representing the same categories as in the moral allocation task (see Supplementary Note 4). This measure allowed us to create heatmaps to visualize the relative sizes of liberals’ and conservatives’ moral circles.
And a quote from the paper:
>Overall, these results suggest conservatives’ moral circles are more likely to encompass human beings, but not other animals or lifeforms whereas liberals’ moral circles are more likely to include nonhumans (even aliens and rocks) as well.
>>>>>as well
Sage

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:15:55 UTC No. 16563393

>>16563133
/thread

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:24:38 UTC No. 16563402

>>16563384
>We also explained to participants that these categories were non-overlapping such that giving to one category (e.g. extended family) would not include an inclusive category (e.g. immediate family).
cope and seethe

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:27:10 UTC No. 16563404

>>16563402

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:39:32 UTC No. 16563449

Akshually there were two tasks, one where the circles were inclusive and one exclusive. It seems the graph is for the inclusive version, so the study doesn't prove that liberals think rocks are MORE valuable than humans, only EQUALLY valuable.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 14:46:40 UTC No. 16563512

>>16563132
Wow. Those were not the instructions given in the paper. Now /pol/brained fags are straight up lying.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:45:24 UTC No. 16563584

>>16563449
>only EQUALLY valuable.
Quite insane but that's their trademark.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 00:10:15 UTC No. 16564314

>>16563133
Science is inherently political, because it is used to excuse government actions.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:45:59 UTC No. 16564399

>>16563132
I think about this image often. It explains so much.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:50:52 UTC No. 16564403

>>16563449
It’s still a fascinating distinction between the two groups.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:54:59 UTC No. 16564458

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 10:06:58 UTC No. 16564699

>>16563449
why does this dumb test groups sapient aliens and extraterrestrial bacteria into one category?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 11:27:24 UTC No. 16564735

>>16563449
>only EQUALLY valuable
That's not what that means.

Also humans+rocks is objectively of greater moral value than humans because rocks don't inherently have negative moral value.

If anything this experiment just proves conservatives are just fucking idiots that don't comprehend how sets work on a fundamental level, or they hate the universe and everything in it outside of their small circles.

Probably both.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 11:40:56 UTC No. 16564743

cool story, /pol/.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 11:44:08 UTC No. 16564744

>>16564735
When presented with a chance to show
a moral preference for close friends and family over rocks, thirdies, and other wastes of the universe's time and energy conservatives gave the obviously correct response while liberals decided to signal what good people they were by declaring their deep concern for the worms on Uranus.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 11:53:37 UTC No. 16564748

>>16564744
Definitely both

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:02:24 UTC No. 16564753

>>16564748
>sure my mom has cancer but that squirrel just cut its foot on a rock! :((

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:34:06 UTC No. 16564777

>>16564753
I'm reiterating myself, but definitely both.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:38:51 UTC No. 16564779

>>16564753
If you care less about the set of things that includes your mother and squirrels than you do about the set of things that includes your mother and excludes squirrels, what you are claiming is that you hate squirrels, not that you love your mother.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:46:42 UTC No. 16564783

>>16564779
If you're asked what you care about in the world and your mind jumps to both your mother *and* squirrels then you're a psychopath.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:53:36 UTC No. 16564787

>>16564779
I care about my mom, your mom, all humans, all squirrels and all rocks. I may only cry when my mom dies and not when your mom dies. I won't cry when a rock withers away from friction. I won't mourn the death of bacteria on my hands after washing them. But God damnit I care about all of them! Even you, anon..

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 13:05:00 UTC No. 16564797

>>16564783
>If you're asked what you care about in the world and your mind jumps to both your mother *and* squirrels then you're a psychopath.
Good thing they weren't asked that, huh?

If you're asked whether you care more about the world including your mother or just your mother, and you answer your mother, you're a dipshit. Or evil. Either or.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 13:21:52 UTC No. 16564808

>>16563132
Ethically speaking why are you a faggot /pol/tard?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:28:06 UTC No. 16565607

>>16564797
People who say "I care about my mother" are expressing real emotions.

People who say "I care about the entire universe!" are virtue signaling and whatever actual emotions they have toward their family are apparently too weak to be more important to them than the virtue signaling.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:16:58 UTC No. 16565905

>>16563150
>"contributing" to the polynesian basket weaving bbs

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:46:37 UTC No. 16565957

>>16564458
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia
>Oikophobia (Greek: oîkos, 'house, household' + phóbos, 'fear'; related to domatophobia and ecophobia[1]) is an aversion to a home environment, or an abnormal fear (phobia) of one's home[2] and also a tendency to criticize or reject one's own culture and praise other cultures.[3]

how come xenophobia is constantly talked about in the media and it's opposite mental condition is never mentioned?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:23:54 UTC No. 16566006

Libtards having a meltie itt lul

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:31:17 UTC No. 16566447

>>16564808
this thread only upsets you because you feel that the data in OP reflects poorly on yourself, you would not have been emotionally triggered had that not been the case

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 07:21:33 UTC No. 16567212

>>16563132
more valuable than CHUDS obviously

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:47:13 UTC No. 16567328

>>16565607
>People who say "I care about the entire universe!" are virtue signaling
The survey was literally about your virtues.

This is what I mean when I say you fuckers are dumb and evil.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:53:10 UTC No. 16569064

>>16567328
>ohh I'm such a saint, I'm perfect, I care about everyone and everything, I'm like Jesus or something!!
>what!?! someone disagreed with me about something!!?
>I hate you!! I want to kill you!!!
the tolerant left, ladies and gentlemen

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:52:48 UTC No. 16569383

>>16569064
I didn't say I hate your or want to kill you. You're projecting. I said you're dumb and evil. People can change, not that you necessarily qualify as "people".

Also, it's a longstanding philosophical principle that the intolerant shouldn't be tolerated. Left, right, or center, no good comes from tolerating shitbags.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
So bitch about people not liking you after you make any effort at all to embrace humanity.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:41:00 UTC No. 16569554

>>16569383
>not that you necessarily qualify as "people"
dehumanization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
Dehumanization is one form of incitement to genocide.[6]

not only are you intolerant of people who don't share your opinions, you're also too ignorant to be able to mask your true feelings effectively.
enjoy your impotent revenge fantasies, kid.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:26:48 UTC No. 16570594

>>16569554
>dehumanization
I don't like this framing because it implies I ever saw you as human.

>Dehumanization is one form of incitement to genocide.
I'm not advocating for harm to befall you. By your own fucking source I'm not dehumanizing you.

Placing hierarchical value on humans as you are advocating for is far more likely to lead to genocide, btw.

>not only are you intolerant of people who don't share your opinions
No. I'm intolerant of people who do share your opinions. Totally different.
>you're also too ignorant to be able to mask your true feelings effectively.
Bold of you to assume I have any intent of masking my feelings. Some of us live dignified lives we can be proud of.
>enjoy your impotent revenge fantasies, kid.
This both implies you've slighted me and implies I give enough of a shit about you in particular to want to get back at you and who the fuck are you kidding?

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 04:27:59 UTC No. 16570969

>>16563132
This picture wouldn't make liberals get so upset if they didn't feel that the data shows something negative about themselves. However even though they recognize that it points out their stupidity and ridiculousness, they still refuse to change to improve themselves.
You don't see conservatives chimping out over the images because "reeeeee it shows that I care about my family and neighbors too much". Its only the liberals who get upset at the image.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:34:49 UTC No. 16571502

>>16570969

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:45:31 UTC No. 16571518

>>16571502
>empathy is just like enjoying porn
Based correct take. Right wingers are anti-porn weirdos that opt for simply raping their kids and fucking their cousins because they can't feel anything toward anyone outside of their family. Porn enjoying empathetic chads stay winning.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:19:10 UTC No. 16572898

>>16570969
>even though they recognize that it points out their stupidity and ridiculousness, they still refuse to change to improve themselves.
they force cognitive dissonance on themselves, thats why they're so angry and emotionally unstable all the time

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 16:47:16 UTC No. 16573320

>>16563132
Not if you are superintelligent AI who can literally create any form of life

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 18:42:31 UTC No. 16573422

>>16563137
>>16563142
Why does this trigger you so much?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:54:51 UTC No. 16574409

>>16565607
>People who say "I care about the entire universe!" are virtue signaling and whatever actual emotions they have toward their family are apparently too weak to be more important to them than the virtue signaling.
Textbook case of projection.
Sounds to me like you've never genuinely cried over all the suffering that is happening in the universe. And deciding because you haven't, no one else has either.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:04:40 UTC No. 16574413

>>16563132
It's just a case of liberals lying and conservatives telling the truth. If you ask a liberal whether they value a random African kid as highly as they value their own child—assuming that they won't just get mad and start screeching at you—they'll say yes. Yet their actions obviously don't support this claim: They don't break down inconsolable when hearing about a terror attack in Nigeria that killed a hundred people, but they obviously would be devastated if their own child died. A conservative admits this, a liberal won't.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:26:22 UTC No. 16574437

>>16574413
You can look at many high profile libshits that trans their kids just as they trans their adopted kids.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 18:13:25 UTC No. 16574470

>>16566006
Why are you proud of abusing animals?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:55:39 UTC No. 16574597

>>16563132
Ethically speaking it depends on what they can do for me compared with what goys can do for me.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:08:46 UTC No. 16574675

>>16563132
The study authors were so bad with their testing methodology in OP's picrel that that heatmap figure makes me laugh every time, bad bins, vague idea of a moral sphere, and the heatmap isn't actually calculating distance from the center point.
The raw datasets exist for each test subject, and the results are far more boring if you know how to calculate the distance from the center. Means are all stuck right in the middle, as expected, between 11 and 7 for libs/con results shown in the OP. The reason why the authors wouldn't show you a basic ass histogram or a box and whisker is beyond understanding
The results have a point, but nothing significant is gleamed, other than a heat map that only clearly displays that people overwhelmingly clicked on the numbers instead of the distance of the circle. 11-7 is between where our law sits right now, with the most "extreme" policy maybe being for endangered tree ethics. Few liberals are protesting space mining because the rocks should be undisturbed, just as few conservatives are calling for wet markets to be legal in the US (they certainly exist somewhere tho).

>>16564403
Not really if you consider that there are 5 other bins of results ignored in OP, they had 7 ideology bins for that experiment and only showed two, if you take 75 people and asked the top 10 most lib/con, you'd replicate the conditions.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Feb 2025 23:44:46 UTC No. 16574883

>>16574675
Am I reading this right or is your image telling me that they had 7 political categories and there 10 or fewer people in each group? There's no way the results would be very statistically significant if that was the case.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 00:05:43 UTC No. 16574894

I do not get why liberals like rocks as much as humans

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 00:10:40 UTC No. 16574898

>>16574883
>One hundred thirty-one United States residents (53 male, Mage=35.82, SD=13.76) were recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) marketplace for a small monetary reward. Although this sample size was simply chosen on the basis of similar past studies, a post hoc power analysis indicated that we had sufficient power (>0.79) to detect the smallest correlation (in absolute value) found in our analyses below (r=−0.24). Participants completed the study using Qualtrics software, including an ideology measure that contained seven options (very liberal, liberal, slightly liberal, moderate, slightly conservative, conservative, very conservative). Participants were also asked about demographics including age and gender (coded as in Study 1a) and education, which participants were asked to enter in terms of years, with high school completion signifying 12. For participants who entered a nonnumerical response, we translated their response to a number using our best judgment (e.g., “some college” was translated to 14 years). Our sample included 64 liberals, 31 moderates, and 36 conservatives, and participants were only included in analyses if they completed the study in full. Sample size was determined based on attempts to maximize statistical power and was confined to participants who completed the study while it was available on the MTurk marketplace.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 00:13:05 UTC No. 16574900

>>16574894
If you look at all of the studies conducted by these researchers on the subject, it becomes apparent that liberals have poor relationships with their families.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 01:01:24 UTC No. 16574953

>>16574883
I'm telling you the raw numbers in the dataset used to make up the figure, there are 131 rows for fig 5 and 7 ideologies
11 in lib (1), 10 in con (7)

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 01:07:05 UTC No. 16574955

>>16574953
This is the entirety of the data used to make OP's pic btw, just to be absolutely clear.
If you want to see the other 5 distributions you can look at >>16574675 or the raw data/paper if you want to make a shitty heatmap.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 04:02:06 UTC No. 16575046

>>16563132
if you identify yourself with the right heatmap your opinion doesn't matter, on anything

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 04:40:50 UTC No. 16575059

>>16574953
Just to be clear. the heatmap was made from 11 "liberals", 10 "conservatives", and these people identify with the most extreme ends of the political spectrum, and it was a voluntary participation poll.

I also took a look at the box plots, if you look at categories 2, 4, and 6, they really don't differ too much in mean, median, and distribution for values lower than the median. It's really categories 1, 3, and 7 that are the most striking.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Feb 2025 06:12:13 UTC No. 16575097

>>16575059
We already read >>16574898, no need to keep panicking.