actually, this was a biology study. That’s why I’m scrutinizing it so. It was delving into sociology and doing a poor job of it.
The parameters were poorly set for the conclusions they reached. If you want to believe it is a good study, you can. I’m not going to stop you.
Ok, being psych clarified it for me. They redid the lollipop study from the 80s and monkeys with stickers and children in the 2010s. Eh. We know more about child psychology than to do that. Oh well.
The thing about the methodology is:
You can have a perfectly carried out experiment.
But if you’re missing important variables and alternatives, your conclusions will not necessarily be invalid per se… but not necessarily correct either.
Good methodology on a flawed hypothesis will lead to a methodologically correct conclusion… but still potentially incorrect
the only trouble I have with the inherent logic argument is the cognitive structures seem to support the notion that it is our emotions that feed our rationality moreso than our rationality suppressing our emotions.
In short, emotional logic seems to be the thing, to put it too simply.
in a form, sure. It’s not that we invented it per se, but we noticed patterns and codified those patterns in to a language that is functional.
But just as lines on a piece of paper aren’t the thing being drawn, neither is the logic the thing being logical about.
depends how you look at it. I see logic as a process – a system – an action – a verb. A ‘process being done”.
i don’t think it has an independent existence from its active usage.
Well, you helped me realize (by pointing out it was done by a psychology department) that it was likely basing itself upon the lollipop alturism study.. which I find questionable for its own reasons that goes beyond the scope of the article above.