{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/10/2017 1:47:08 PM
1
I guess these ones are wrong too:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwilvYuN1IXSAhVFQCYKHd6EBIoQFgggMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2016%2Fjun%2F11%2Fliberals-not-conservatives-more-likely-possess-psy%2F&usg=AFQjCNHwKnl1y7mkRs1AQayoko3g3Ns4kA&sig2=fdoatkfxvhg572ZR9Ns3eg
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/07/conservative-political-beliefs-not-linked-to-psychotic-traits/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-authors-retract-it-turns-out-conservatives-are-not-psychotic-liberals
...among many others.
English
-
It kind of tells me that the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed to begin with. To be fair, the Eysenk test was created in the 80s and there are questions about flaws or may contain.
-
Well, yea. If you find that the actual conclusion is completely different from the original, published one, then I would say it was flawed to begin with. It's nice they got it right in the end but it doesn't matter much when people have been thinking the opposite the past few years.
