You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews.

You seem to be unaware that i am an actual scientist.

You seem to be unaware that i am an actual scientist.

Computer science was it? I am sure you are more than competent in your field but it isn't transferring to this area.

Computer science was it? I am sure you are more than competent in your field but it isn't transferring to this area.

You missed the point.

"You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews." was your attempt at lecturing me on research.

I learned how to research before Google or Yahoo! existed.  No matter the field, the ability to actually do research is often the same. 

But, you'd have to be an expert to understand it fully.

 

You missed the point.

"You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews." was your attempt at lecturing me on research.

I learned how to research before Google or Yahoo! existed.  No matter the field, the ability to actually do research is often the same. 

But, you'd have to be an expert to understand it fully.

 

You are the one who dismissed qualitative research by saying it is an edited youtube video but now you are saying you know all about scientific research. So which is it? Are qualitative interviews part of the scientific method or not?

You are the one who dismissed qualitative research by saying it is an edited youtube video but now you are saying you know all about scientific research. So which is it? Are qualitative interviews part of the scientific method or not?

Not when the interview is with someone who never actually engaged in the act being investigated -- i.e. school shootings.

Now, if the purpose was to interview people who claim to have been planning to shoot up a school and chickened out, then the focus of the video should have been on that and not how it may or may not be representative of how actual shooters "feel."

Extrapolating from one person's account doesn't give an ounce of insight into how another person felt.  Feelings are not universal.

Not when the interview is with someone who never actually engaged in the act being investigated -- i.e. school shootings.

Here we go full circle again. If they didn't go through with the act then they don't count to you. But if they did go through with the act then you don't trust them so they still don't count to you. You are finding reasons to justify not believing what he and others like him have said, that is not science. I just can't understand what is leading to this bias you are exhibiting.

Now, if the purpose was to interview people who claim to have been planning to shoot up a school and chickened out, then the focus of the video should have been on that and not how it may or may not be representative of how actual shooters "feel."

If you watched the interview you would know that he didn't say anything to indicate he chickened out. Do you not even give Jordan Peterson any credit?

Extrapolating from one person's account doesn't give an ounce of insight into how another person felt.  Feelings are not universal.

Nope but it is still of value, qualitative study is still important and useful even though it is not quantitative.

Here we go full circle again. If they didn't go through with the act then they don't count to you. But if they did go through with the act then you don't trust them so they still don't count to you. You are finding reasons to justify not believing what he and others like him have said, that is not science. I just can't understand what is leading to this bias you are exhibiting.


If you watched the interview you would know that he didn't say anything to indicate he chickened out. Do you not even give Jordan Peterson any credit?


Nope but it is still of value, qualitative study is still important and useful even though it is not quantitative.

And there you go -- making an already too long thread even longer repeating everything you already said.

And it won't make your story better no matter how many times you blurt it out.

And there you go -- making an already too long thread even longer repeating everything you already said.

And it won't make your story better no matter how many times you blurt it out.

Sorry, I tried leading the horse to water, but he doesn't want to drink. Perhaps its time to let the stuborn horse be.

Sorry, I tried leading the horse to water, but he doesn't want to drink. Perhaps its time to let the stuborn horse be.

Hahhahahhaha.oh, the irony

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Hahhahahhaha.oh, the irony

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You can't teach someone who thinks he already knows everything.

And the appropriate phrase is:  You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

He just wants to be right even when his opinion is diametrically opposite of right.

He just wants to be right even when his opinion is diametrically opposite of right.

Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)

Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)

Agree to disagree.

 

Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)

Hahhahhaa

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk