PDA

View Full Version : Projection onto God



Jichard
11-01-2015, 02:41 PM
This thread was inspired by the following comment:


You have repeatedly reminded us (especially Jim) of something you said earlier:


"Christianity (especially through inheritance from Judaism) applies our familiar, commonsense psychology to God. Hence it attributing to God intentions beliefs, desires, and so on, where those states are similar to those had by humans (ex: jealousy, anger)."
In this quote, you are basically saying that the biblical God is personal, with all of the traits of personality. I agree that God shares these traits with humans. But there is more than one possible explanation for this commonality. Here are two possibilities among many:
1) Jichard's explanation(?): the biblical God is purely a projection of the human mind, so God shares some characteristics of human personality
2) the biblical explanation: God created man in His own image, giving man some characteristics of God's personality

I have no problem with the claim that some aspects of God are "natural." This is exactly what we should expect if we have been created by God in His own image.

There's no evidence for explanation 2 and I previously explained some reasons why 1 is a batter explanation than 2 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8387-Intelligence-and-Religiosity&p=259789#post259789). In this thread, I'm going to go over some scientific evidence showing that humans (in this case, I'l be focusing largely on Christians) project onto God, where this projection is often influenced by culture and one's personality. Maybe at some point, someone will be able to muster similar evidence for the claim that God created man in His own image, giving man some characteristics of God's personality, though I highly doubt it.



"Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs"
http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf


"People often reason egocentrically about others’ beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent’s beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people’s own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God’s beliefs than with estimates of other people’s beliefs (Studies 1– 4). Manipulating people’s beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God’s beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people’s beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one’s own beliefs and God’s beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person’s beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God’s beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person’s beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God’s beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one’s own existing beliefs.

[...]

The Jewish and Christian traditions state explicitly that God created man in his own image, but believers and nonbelievers alike have long argued that people seem to create God in their own image as well (2–5)."


How Christians reconcile their personal political views and the teachings of their faith: Projection as a means of dissonance reduction
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/3616.full.pdf


"The present study explores the dramatic projection of one’s own views onto those of Jesus among conservative and liberal American Christians. In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “fellowship” issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “morality” issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues."


Was he happy? Cultural difference in conceptions of Jesus
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656610001728


"In Study 1, we asked Korean and American participants to engage in a free association task with Jesus as a target. Americans associated Jesus with primarily positive connotations (“awesome”) and rarely with negative connotations (“pain”), whereas Koreans associated Jesus with both positive and negative connotations. In Study 2, we asked Korean and American participants to rate Jesus and themselves using personality and well-being scales. Americans rated both Jesus and themselves as more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, open, and happier than did Koreans."


Correlation of Self-Perception and Image of Christ Using the Five-Factor Model of Personality
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/41/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11089-007-0106-x.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fa rticle%2F10.1007%2Fs11089-007-0106-x&token2=exp=1446417858~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F41%2Fa rt%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11089-007-0106-x.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.spring er.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs11089-007-0106-x*~hmac=392bd05d4c0635c8b2c0b3dcbe284d81f1ff90ef9d 726cc6d6a4d744cc317961


"In this study, the relationship between one’s self-perception of personality and his or her image of Jesus Christ was studied within a sample of 153 undergraduate students, of whom 130 were Christian and 23 were non-Christian; 23 Protestant pastors; and 55 Protestant laypersons. Using two forms of the NEO Personality Inventory (Self and Observer), ratings of the Big Five personality factors were obtained for both self and Jesus Christ. Results indicated significant positive correlations between ratings of self and Christ in each of the subgroups of Christian individuals. No correlations were found between ratings of self and Christ for the non-Christians. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differing correlations between groups. Christian persons may project perceptions onto Christ or attempt to mold themselves in a way more consistent with their own images of Christ."


Nearer My God to Thee: Self–God Overlap and Believers’ Relationships with God.
http://www.academia.edu/3257401/Nearer_my_God_to_thee_Self-God_overlap_and_believers_relationships_with_God


"Three studies, using two community samples (ns = 39 and 78) and a university student sampleof Christian believers in God (n= 76), found that more religious people report greater self– other overlap with God.

[...]

When it came to how much of participants’ descriptions of God overlapped with their views of the self (i.e., God–percentage of overlap), evangelicals also believed that a greater percentage of the adjectives ascribed to God could also be used to describe themselves. However, when evangelicals considered which traits they had that they also ascribed to God, their lists were no more positive or negative than non-evangelicals’. Evangelicals simply claimed a bigger piece of God for themselves, and that piece included both good and bad at roughly the same ratio found in the smaller piece of God claimed by atheists.

Thus, from this first dataset, we have evidence that believers show self–God overlap, as measured through adjective checklists. Furthermore, we have a clear answer to our question about whether believers and non-believers differ in terms of self–God overlap. Believers clearly see their self descriptions as overlapping more with their conceptions of God than non-believers do, and, in fact, using this particular set of adjectives, believers saw almost everything positive about themselves as overlapping with God—and the overlap on positive self traits was greater than the overlap they saw with their mothers (a number which was very similar to what atheists reported about their mothers)."


Creating God in Our Image: The Role of Self-Projection in Estimating God’s Beliefs
http://www.alexareynolds.com/MastersThesis.pdf

Bill the Cat
11-01-2015, 03:21 PM
11033

Jichard
11-02-2015, 03:37 AM
11033

As usual, you and your ilk have nothing worthwhile to say when it comes to science.

Troll somewhere else. Maybe on one of those threads where you can deny AGW again because you think Dyson told you to.

Catholicity
11-02-2015, 06:41 AM
As usual, you and your ilk have nothing worthwhile to say when it comes to science.

Troll somewhere else. Maybe on one of those threads where you can deny AGW again because you think Dyson told you to.

He's not trolling, he's posting how he sincerely feels about the idiocy you just posted. Its laughable.

Psychic Missile
11-02-2015, 06:44 AM
I came to this realization a while ago. Along with the psychological, sociological, and neurological evidence, we have historical evidence. What believers of any given religion think their god wants differs from era to era and from place to place. You say this phenomenon is projection, I would go further and call it self-deification. It's no leap at all to get from moral grandstanding based on what a god wants to pharaonic decree.

shunyadragon
11-02-2015, 09:21 AM
He's not trolling, he's posting how he sincerely feels about the idiocy you just posted. Its laughable.

It was clearly trolling and nothing sincere in his post. Your response is laughable.If you have anything constructive to add please do.

shunyadragon
11-02-2015, 09:22 AM
11033

:troll:

Bill the Cat
11-02-2015, 10:15 AM
:troll:

11063

Bill the Cat
11-02-2015, 10:26 AM
It was clearly trolling and nothing sincere in his post.

Oh baloney Frank. Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" from typical ignorant masses who think God wrote the Bible yesterday just for them. It's of little surprise that people foist their opinions onto God when a majority think that God is their personal ATM. They have little knowledge of church history or the doctrines the church has defended for centuries. I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys.

Psychic Missile
11-02-2015, 04:52 PM
Oh baloney Frank. Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" from typical ignorant masses who think God wrote the Bible yesterday just for them. It's of little surprise that people foist their opinions onto God when a majority think that God is their personal ATM. They have little knowledge of church history or the doctrines the church has defended for centuries. I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys.

Hit a little too close to home?

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:28 PM
Oh baloney Frank. Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" from typical ignorant masses who think God wrote the Bible yesterday just for them.

Once again, you made false claims about scientific studies you hadn't read (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8714-Climate-Change-By-The-Numbers&p=259890#post259890). For example, the first paper listed isn't just a "survey "stud[y]"". Instead, said paper includes a priming study and an imaging study.

At some point, Bill, you actually need to read the things you comment on. And your response to this scientific research dislays the flaws you complain about elsewhere:



Now, do you care to address the article I cited, or are you too busy trying to discredit people who disagree with your pat answers?

[..] You saw someone post something that bucked the current research, and immediately went into attack dog mode. That's not how science is done. It's why I loved discussing things like this with Sylas before the crash, He was FAR more reasonable than you could ever hope to be on the topic.


It's of little surprise that people foist their opinions onto God when a majority think that God is their personal ATM. They have little knowledge of church history or the doctrines the church has defended for centuries.

First, present some actual evidence for your claim.

Second, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblican texts) were'nt simply projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?


I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys.

So, as expected, you disregarded the studies without reading them, since the studies were inconvenient for your ideological position. Hypocrite says:



Now, do you care to address the article I cited, or are you too busy trying to discredit people who disagree with your pat answers?

[..] You saw someone post something that bucked the current research, and immediately went into attack dog mode. That's not how science is done. It's why I loved discussing things like this with Sylas before the crash, He was FAR more reasonable than you could ever hope to be on the topic.

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:33 PM
He's not trolling, he's posting how he sincerely feels about the idiocy you just posted. Its laughable.

No, he's just trolling and being a hypocrite.

When he posts press pieces about scientific research, he expects people to address the research and not "attack" the research:



Now, do you care to address the article I cited, or are you too busy trying to discredit people who disagree with your pat answers?

[...]

You saw someone post something that bucked the current research, and immediately went into attack dog mode. That's not how science is done. It's why I loved discussing things like this with Sylas before the crash, He was FAR more reasonable than you could ever hope to be on the topic.
Yet when he's presented scientific research, he does not address the research and instead simply attacks the research without reading it:



Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" from typical ignorant masses who think God wrote the Bible yesterday just for them.
[...]
I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys.
That's one way to tell someone is trolling: when they blatantly violate the very guidelines they hold other people to. Another way to tell their trolling is when they post silly images, as opposed to addressing the substance of what they said. Bill did that, and Bill is clearly trolling.

Bill the Cat
11-03-2015, 06:16 AM
Once again, you made false claims about scientific studies you hadn't read (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8714-Climate-Change-By-The-Numbers&p=259890#post259890). For example, the first paper listed isn't just a "survey "stud[y]"". Instead, said paper includes a priming study and an imaging study.

Of a whopping 18 people... and it's an absolute shock... SHOCK I tell you... that Americans were found generally egocentric when it comes to what they think God's standards are... :shocked:



First, present some actual evidence for your claim.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/




Second, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblican texts) were'nt simply projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?

That's another subject. For a Christian, the scriptures are God's Word, and no matter what we WANT to believe, that Word SHOULD come before our belief on what God "should" say on the subjects.



So, as expected, you disregarded the studies without reading them, since the studies were inconvenient for your ideological position.

No, moron. I read the ones I could access for free, but I don't have the time to go through them with a fine tooth comb to comment on why they aren't as concrete as you claim, nor your flawed thinking that they somehow prove that man made up God.

Psychic Missile
11-03-2015, 09:12 AM
Bill reminds me of people who claim advertising may work on everyone else, but it doesn't work on them. His arguments thus far are "you're wrong but I don't have time to tell you why" and "no true Christian". :ahem:

Bill the Cat
11-03-2015, 09:14 AM
Bill reminds me of people who claim advertising may work on everyone else, but it doesn't work on them. His arguments thus far are "you're wrong but I don't have time to tell you why" and "no true Christian". :ahem:
You're so clever...

Psychic Missile
11-03-2015, 07:19 PM
You're so clever...

Don't I know it! :teeth:

Jichard
11-03-2015, 08:37 PM
Of a whopping 18 people...

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?


and it's an absolute shock... SHOCK I tell you... that Americans were found generally egocentric when it comes to what they think God's standards are... :shocked:

Onc again, you show that you didn't actually read the research in question before commenting on it. For example, the research was not just limited to Americans (ex: it includes Koreans(.


http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

That doesn't provide any evidence for your claim that: "It's of little surprise that people foist their opinions onto God when a majority think that God is their personal ATM. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8860-Projection-onto-God&p=259983#post259983)"



Second, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblican texts) were'nt simply projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?

That's another subject. For a Christian, the scriptures are God's Word, and no matter what we WANT to believe, that Word SHOULD come before our belief on what God "should" say on the subjects.

No, it's not another subject; it's right in line with the subject of this. Given the evidence on projection, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblical texts) wern't projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?


No, moron. I read the ones I could access for free,

No, you didn't. For example, you made false claims about the study, false claims you would not have made if you had read the studies and then tried to accurately represent the contents. For example, you false acted as if the studies were just about surveys, and when your mistake was pointed out to you, you falsely acted as if the priming and imaginig studies included just 18 people. You also acted as if the studies were just about Americans, which is also false.


but I don't have the time to go through them with a fine tooth comb to comment on why they aren't as concrete as you claim,

You don't have enough time to actually go through the studies but you do have time to laugh at the studies (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8860-Projection-onto-God&p=259813#post259813), falsely act as if the studies are just surveys, then call the studies "crap"?


"Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" [...] I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8860-Projection-onto-God&p=259983#post259983)"

It just goes to show that you'll attack scientific research that's inconveneint for your pet ideology, without bothering to read and understand the research first. And that makes the following post of your's all the more hypocritical:


"Now, do you care to address the article I cited, or are you too busy trying to discredit people who disagree with your pat answers?

[..] You saw someone post something that bucked the current research, and immediately went into attack dog mode. That's not how science is done. It's why I loved discussing things like this with Sylas before the crash, He was FAR more reasonable than you could ever hope to be on the topic. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8714-Climate-Change-By-The-Numbers&p=259904#post259904)"


nor your flawed thinking that they somehow prove that man made up God.

I never claims that the studies "prove that man made up God". I wouldn't claim that for a number of reasons. For example, science does not "prove" things, since science isn't math or formal logic; instead, science provides evidence. I made it clear what claim I was actually defendind in the OP:


"I'm going to go over some scientific evidence showing that humans (in this case, I'l be focusing largely on Christians) project onto God, where this projection is often influenced by culture and one's personality."

So please stick to that claim, as opposed to the strawman you erected.

Bill the Cat
11-04-2015, 10:06 AM
That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?.

You dang skippy.


Study 7. Eighteen healthy, right-handed volunteers (8 men, 10 women; age 18
to 45 years, Mdn # 21 years) participated in exchange for $40. Of these, 17
reported believing in God in a prescreening survey and are included in the
analyses.

Eighteen is the same as 18.

Jichard
11-04-2015, 01:13 PM
That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?

You dang skippy.


Study 7. Eighteen healthy, right-handed volunteers (8 men, 10 women; age 18
to 45 years, Mdn # 21 years) participated in exchange for $40. Of these, 17
reported believing in God in a prescreening survey and are included in the
analyses.

Eighteen is the same as 18.

Ok, so now you've moved on to quote-mining scientific research. That's really bad. Your quote-mine left out the priming studies, which were studies 5 and 6. Instead, you quote-mined the paper to mention only study 7. This was a fairly disreputable thing for you to do.

To recap: you acted as the studies contained only surveys. When it was pointed out to you that your claim was false since there was also priming and imaging work, you acted as if the priming and imaging work included only 18 people. When it was pointed out that this claim of your's was false, you then moved to quote-mining the research to exclude the priming studies, so that you could act as if the number was only 18. That's really bad, Bill. You shouldn't misrepresent scientific research like this.





Once again, you made false claims about scientific studies you hadn't read (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8714-Climate-Change-By-The-Numbers&p=259890#post259890). For example, the first paper listed isn't just a "survey "stud[y]"". Instead, said paper includes a priming study and an imaging study.

Of a whopping 18 people

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?
Now, Bill, please give me an honest response: how many people were involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies?

And please answer without quote-mining the paper to exclude the priming studies.

Bill the Cat
11-04-2015, 01:33 PM
Ok, so now you've moved on to quote-mining scientific research. That's really bad. Your quote-mine left out the priming studies, which were studies 5 and 6.

:rofl: Study 5 was an online self-survey and a survey of what the person thought another person thought. Dumbass. Same with 6. Questionnaires, all but the brain scans. Therefore, my claim remains correct. Out of 7 different studies, only 1 actually measured something outside of an individual's choices on a bubble sheet. And that single one had such an insignificant sample size, it can be all but excluded.




Instead, you quote-mined the paper to mention only study 7. This was a fairly disreputable thing for you to do.

No it wasn't. It was the only one that wasn't "fill in this bubble sheet on what you think" Those are surveys, regardless of what you try to call them.


To recap: you acted as the studies contained only surveys.

And other than an insignificant blip of 18 people, the first one was. The others were opinion pieces backed by similar surveys.


When it was pointed out to you that your claim was false since there was also priming and imaging work, you acted as if the priming and imaging work included only 18 people.

The "priming" work were both surveys.


When it was pointed out that this claim of your's was false, you then moved to quote-mining the research to exclude the priming studies, so that you could act as if the number was only 18. That's really bad, Bill. You shouldn't misrepresent scientific research like this.

I'll bet you are the type that will argue that there is more than just cereal in the box, aren't you? You'd probably point to something like this (http://www.livescience.com/51123-gross-things-food-insects-mold-poop.html) and call whoever was serving you a liar and that their claim was false, and that they gave you cereal, bug parts, and mouse poop. :duh: Things like generalizations are lost on you, I see.

Jichard
11-04-2015, 01:48 PM
:rofl: Study 5 was an online self-survey and a survey of what the person thought another person thought. Dumbass. Same with 6. Questionnaires, all but the brain scans.

Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.


Therefore, my claim remains correct.

No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.


Out of 7 different studies, only 1 actually measured something outside of an individual's choices on a bubble sheet.

Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.


And that single one had such an insignificant sample size, it can be all but excluded.

That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources. So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging. Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.


No it wasn't. It was the only one that wasn't "fill in this bubble sheet on what you think" Those are surveys, regardless of what you try to call them.

Same old misrepresentations dealt with above.


And other than an insignificant blip of 18 people, the first one was.

Another mistake based on you not understanding the relevance of sample size.


The others were opinion pieces backed by similar surveys.

And now you've moved on to misrepresenting scientific papers as "opinion pieces". Sad.


The "priming" work were both surveys.

Mispresentation dealt with above.


I'll bet you are the type that will argue that there is more than just cereal in the box, aren't you? You'd probably point to something like this (http://www.livescience.com/51123-gross-things-food-insects-mold-poop.html) and call whoever was serving you a liar and that their claim was false, and that they gave you cereal, bug parts, and mouse poop. :duh: Things like generalizations are lost on you, I see.

Irrelevant trolling.

Catholicity
11-04-2015, 02:17 PM
Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.



No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.



Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.



That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources. So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging. Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.



Same old misrepresentations dealt with above.



Another mistake based on you not understanding the relevance of sample size.



And now you've moved on to misrepresenting scientific papers as "opinion pieces". Sad.



Mispresentation dealt with above.



Irrelevant trolling.
Like it or not 18 people is not a good size study. Not according to statistical evidence, A reasonable sample size for good hard evidence should contain 1 percent of the represented population. Which is a high number of people. So if 30 percent of Americans have Clinical Depression or 100,000,000 people, then for a 95 percent confidence level you should survey 1,000 people. Now 18 people might give you the idea that A study should be re done to a statistically significant standard, but unless its for a very rare disease, disorder, dysfunction or problem, its not going to get much in the way of attention.

Jichard
11-04-2015, 02:44 PM
Like it or not 18 people is not a good size study. Not according to statistical evidence

I'm pretty sure that's false, as shown by the fact that the study has statistically significant results from the imaging sutdy, the study passed peer-review, and plenty of other neuroimaging studies yield statistically significant results with said sample size or smaller.


A reasonable sample size for good hard evidence should contain 1 percent of the represented population. Which is a high number of people.

A false, arbitrary claim. Different experimental techniques use different sample sizes. For example, it's absurd to expect a neuroimaging study to have the same sample size as a large-scale epidemiological study. And not even people doing polls act as if they need to poll 1% of a population in order to get an accurate sample. As far as I can tell, you seem to have arbitrarily selected the 1% figure; it doesn't seem to have any basis in science.


So if 30 percent of Americans have Clinical Depression or 100,000,000 people, then for a 95 percent confidence level you should survey 1,000 people.

I've taken courses in statistics (specifically the statistics one would use in a biological setting), and what you said makes no sense to me. Why do you think that a 95% CI requires sampling 1% of the population? Because it doesn't.

Also, I don't think 1000 is not 1% of 100,000,000. It's a much lower percentage than that. A 1% survey (by your standards) would require looking at 1,000,000 people.


Now 18 people might give you the idea that A study should be re done to a statistically significant standard, but unless its for a very rare disease, disorder, dysfunction or problem, its not going to get much in the way of attention.

The imaging study yielded statistically significant results. These are gone over on page 21536 of the study, along with the statistical tests used (http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf).

Catholicity
11-04-2015, 03:06 PM
Here is a handy dandy quick guide I found rather than quoting my stat book:

https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/Population Size — How many total people fit your demographic? For instance, if you want to know about mothers living in the US, your population size would be the total number of mothers living in the US. Don’t worry if you are unsure about this number. It is common for the population to be unknown or approximated.
Margin of Error (Confidence Interval) — No sample will be perfect, so you need to decide how much error to allow. The confidence interval determines how much higher or lower than the population mean you are willing to let your sample mean fall. If you’ve ever seen a political poll on the news, you’ve seen a confidence interval. It will look something like this: “68% of voters said yes to Proposition Z, with a margin of error of +/- 5%.”
Confidence Level — How confident do you want to be that the actual mean falls within your confidence interval? The most common confidence intervals are 90% confident, 95% confident, and 99% confident.
Standard of Deviation — How much variance do you expect in your responses? Since we haven’t actually administered our survey yet, the safe decision is to use .5 – this is the most forgiving number and ensures that your sample will be large enough.

Okay, now that we have these values defined, we can calculate our needed sample size.

Your confidence level corresponds to a Z-score. This is a constant value needed for this equation. Here are the z-scores for the most common confidence levels:

90% – Z Score = 1.645
95% – Z Score = 1.96
99% – Z Score = 2.576

If you choose a different confidence level, use this Z-score table* to find your score.

A z score of 1.96 is relatively standard when using populations and calculating how many are necessary for the standard .95 percent. 1 percent is generally whats estimated after a standard deviation of 1 each way. Its not arbirtary, its not false. Search for it, do the math equation. If a study of 18 people yields a sturdy result then it ONLY MEANS that the study is worth reproduction. That's how clinical trials get started.

Bill the Cat
11-04-2015, 03:12 PM
Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.

Both "priming studies" concluded with surveys.




No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.

And the "priming studies were concluded with surveys.




Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.

But it included a survey, didn't it? And the fact that you admit it "involved more than a survey" shows that you know it included one.




That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I took a few statistics courses in college. I know what insignificant sampling sizes are. While not an expert by any stretch, I do know that 18 people out of several hundred million is insignificant.


I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources.

I dare you to back that claim up, liar.


So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging.

Cite where they listed their methodology in selecting the sample size they used. Again, I dare you to put up or shut up.


Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.

I know how sampling size works, moron. I'm now challenging you to prove it was significant based on the paper.

Jichard
11-07-2015, 01:11 PM
Both "priming studies" concluded with surveys.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.


And the "priming studies were concluded with surveys.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.


But it included a survey, didn't it? And the fact that you admit it "involved more than a survey" shows that you know it included one.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.


I took a few statistics courses in college.

Did you actually pay attention?



That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I know what insignificant sampling sizes are. While not an expert by any stretch, I do know that 18 people out of several hundred million is insignificant.

OK, you just showed that you're not familiar with what you're talking about. Your response was made to a post about statistical significance. You seem to think that the "significance" in that phrase is about the the size of the sample relative to the size of the whole population. But that's false; that's not "significance" is about. The "significance" is (roughly and in laymen's terms) about the likelihood that one's effect size was produced by randomness. Basically, the significance here tells you whether you can reject the null hypothesis with respect to one's results. If you'd taken any basic course in statistics for science (and paid attention), as you claimed to, then you'd know this.

Now, the paper's author's got statistically signficant results using the imaging studies, and they even stated the statistical tests they used to get those results. For example:


"Across participants, the egocentric correlation in this pilot experiment was larger for God’s attitudes (MFisher’s z = 0.47) than for the Average American’s attitudes (MFisher’s z = 0.06), paired-t (17) = 3.24, P < 0.01 (see SI Text and Fig. S2 for procedural details).

[...]

Voxelwise comparisons indicated that the God-American contrast and self-American contrast produced similar patterns of activation in the mPFC, medial precuneus, bilateral tempororparietal junction, right medial temporal gyrus, and left insula regions (voxelwise Ps < 0.005, corrected; Fig. 3A), whereas the self-God contrast produced no significant differences in these regions. We next designated four equal-volume regions of interest that covered the area within the mPFC previously associated with self and other processing (Fig. 3B) (23). A 3 (condition: Self, God, average American) % 4 (mPFC region: inferior, middle inferior, middle superior, superior) repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 32) + 3.80, P + 0.033. As illustrated in Fig. 3B, activity in the mPFC was lower when participants thought about the average American’s attitudes than when they thought about their own attitude or God’s attitudes (Ps < 0.05), whereas activity in the mPFC did not differ between the self and God conditions. The mPFC region % condition interaction was nonsignificant, F < 1 (see SI Text, Figs. S3–S5, and Tables S2 and S3 for details about acquisition and supplemental analyses) (21536). (http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf)"

A p-value of less than 0.05 would count as statistically significant.

Further tests of statisticaly significance are presented here, on pages 3, 8, 10, and 11 (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/12/02/0908374106.DCSupplemental/0908374106SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT).


I dare you to back that claim up, liar.

Here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8063-Humans-are-responsible-for-most-of-the-recent-global-warming&p=260573#post260573


Cite where they listed their methodology in selecting the sample size they used. Again, I dare you to put up or shut up.

I already cited for you where they showed that their sample size yielded statistically significant results. You apparently weren't aware of that, since you apparently either didn't read the paper very closely before discussing it, or you didn't understand the paper.

Of course, the authors could have run something like a power analysis before-hand to figure out how much of a sample size they would need for a predicted effect size to yield statistically significant results. I've done something similar for my own experiments. However, in a scientific paper, one typically doesn't need to show said power analysis, once one shows one has statistically significant results. The power analysis is simply a tool for figuring out how to get said significant results (on the assumption that the effect size is real, and not due to randomness). Once one gets those results, the power analysis is no longer required.


I know how sampling size works, moron. I'm now challenging you to prove it was significant based on the paper.

Quoted for you above.

You should really read scientific papers (andu nderstand them) before commenting on them.