Hello people i am back for a short time which means i won't be able to respond to comments like i mentioned before, i will be able to drop in every so often. this case is to really point out a observation about the over all scientific study system. now I'm really focus on the studies and in how there conducted but more in how we perceive them. Not saying Scientific and Psychological studies are wrong which it might seem but that i think people over value the studies and results of thus study.
The reason i want to make this post isn't really for debating purposes because i don't usually have enough internet time to do that but more of all something to think about. try being open minded because i want to explore a thought process many people don't consider when it comes to this. it is going to be long post and a rant, the grammar will have flaws in it in certain parts. try to deny the temptation to focus on the errors and try to focus on the over all point and not how its worded. and i have notice sometimes i explain things in a bizarre fashion people aren't use to and could miss-perceive my intended points for something else. misinterpretations happens to many people.
I think every now and again if your usually use to the same old stuff something new to think about is helpful for mental sharpness. So get your mind turned on for this.
I think many people perceive scientific studies to exaggerated levels when people look at them, and scientist themselves after a study.
And the thing about a lot of solid studies, is it can also have its wrongs in it. Nothing is a hundred percent solid fact, even facts can and have been debunked as a fact when newly unseen and unfound inconsistencies are found. In the past. I give credit that the human race with research is alot better as a whole. though we aren't flawless beings.
Before i proceed with my point. If you don't read it all, there's no need for you to comment about it. Because if you didn't read it, there's no way you can know all the content in it. Which means there's no possible way for you to really be involve in a discussion about if it that happens to be the case.
Nothing is in concrete, there are things that are solidly proven but in many of those things, their are also minor or huge inconsistencies in it, that are ignored, But truthfully shouldn't be ignored. or like i said just unfounded yet.
Especially in percentage studies that have percentage statistics.
To rationalize a certain amount of people who might not fit the description, to fit the description. Compared to a lesser percentage of something that might differ from. (And might i add, a lot of studies are much more thorough then others, and go in more depth with there studies. The reliability of the Information, is usually depended on how solid and thorough the person is doing the test. Its very depended on who is doing the study, even then there can be minor flaws in the study itself, people didn't notice or realize or didn't think was there, or didn't know to look where the error happen to be..)
To get a study of a state or a gender a hundred percent precise. You could literally have to interview every person in that state, or country, or if its a worldly study... To be a hundred percent thorough, you have to interview every human over all. To really have the statistics, on point hundred percent which is impossible..(And even then if your method of getting the information could of had flaws in it and you can study every person and miss many things so even doing that your not a hundred percent right) Which a lot of these test are based on percentage, even outside of studies with statistics.) a lot of these studies like i said are of smaller portions of people. or variables depending on the test.
And usually these studies are conducted with smaller groups, then those amount of people i spoke of.. that would be consider a state wide or country wide statistic which their usually are (For a poor hypothetical example i might add, you can say the following) So yes there are studies that says 30 percent of women in Canada are more carefree then men.(not a true statistic just a example) (You can say something else for a better example but the point is the same for any example if you hear me out..) However those poles are made from a smaller portion of people then they make it out to be. (A decent amount of the time) which means they can't apply to as much people as they are used to for.
It doesn't always, exactly apply to those who didn't have anything to do with that test. For another bad example, like if they say 50 percent of American men hit there wives. its more likely its 50 percent out of the 100 or couple hundred people who was studied. the statistics aren't as precise as people believe. and yes maybe they apply to those in the study of course.But beyond those people involved within the study? for all the rest of people not involved, its arbitrarily evidence to prove people not involved in the test fits the description of the states of the test. If you get my drift. its depended on many variables if that percentage of men applies to you or not.
There's a lot of diamonds of the rough, who can't be categorized by studies and statistics. I think when it comes to behavior studies its like the rest but a bit worse, even if the research is solid.. However i think we make them out to be more solid then they actually are, even to those who study it. There's no way to be perfect in a study of any kind because humans aren't perfect. Meaning every fact will have its imperfections within the fact/theory/statistic/hypothesis so keep a open mind that these studies were conducted by people.
human beings. sure skilled human beings but still human.
Sure there professionals but even professionals aren't always right.