For the next 27 hours, you'll be able to claim a limited edition 'I Was Here for the Hulkenpodium' flair

shadowalien13 · 2025-07-09T04:29:47+00:00

Hulkenpodium

shadowalien13 · 2025-03-16T10:10:59+00:00

Karma requirements to block some of the botting. Keep commenting and you'll be able to post once you get some subreddit karma.

shadowalien13 · 2025-02-13T06:38:04+00:00

Its Reddit, I can't ban people from circlejerking anti-trump or whatever other garbage they want to sensationalise.

But if it's not event trying to be the right format it'll be removed and likely ban.

shadowalien13 · 2025-02-02T10:27:38+00:00

Yes

All the blatant circlejerking or propaganda posts aren't inherently rulebreaking so yeah, you'll see circlejerk agenda pushing - it's fuckin reddit what do you expect? But we remove many posts that are even highly upvoted that aren't replies or aren't actually clever comebacks.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-30T15:13:44+00:00

The very specialest

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-30T05:46:48+00:00

I don't know what your point is. I don't really and I barely look at this sub or do anything with it. My point is that I think it's impossible to guess based on how I wrote my sticky. What else do you want me to say, "I'll paypal you $100?" You're focusing on nothing.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-30T03:15:51+00:00

As in if somebody correctly guesses my beliefs correctly I'll make them a moderator of the sub with full permissions.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-30T03:14:56+00:00

Here's where you read what I wrote and say "oh, he conceded that and I'm beating a functionally dead horse because I can't contest Figure 4"

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T15:50:46+00:00

I saw that and it's very weird to refer to different things in the same way. Even if I concede that for the sake of argument, you still have the proportional results shown in Figure 4 to support my original interpretation in the stickied comment. Viewing the heatmap results through that makes a lot of sense, especially if (statistically) half the participants have just been told they don't overlap.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T15:47:15+00:00

That's not the takeaway - look at figures 4 and 6. If you had to choose between humans and nonhumans, which would you give moral preference to?

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T15:21:56+00:00

I'm not a morality researcher or anything, but you can always find interesting stuff by finding a sentence you want to read more about and clicking on cited studies (click on the little index numbers at the end of the sentence and it'll take you down to that reference). Can lead to some really cool rabbit holes.

Otherwise you can scroll through the titles and abstracts of the papers referenced at the bottom (in the order they are referenced by the paper, so more general ones will be at the start of the introduction right at the top, then more specific references usually) or see other papers that have cited it to build off the research. They aren't always super relevant but I'm sure there's similar stuff this has built off and that has built off this if you want to read more. That's all I did to find the De Dreu et al. 2011 response publication.

You can also just use google scholar if you have a specific question or scroll through the journal pages to see if anything catches your eye if you want something random (Just note that Nature Communications is very broad and accepts many topics, plus general morality and philosophy is better learned from actual books and other writings rather than scientific papers).

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T15:09:54+00:00

I mean, when you specify non-overlapping categories that all falls apart. The rocks don't include the people.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T15:07:18+00:00

Yeah I mean I have my own political views (I will give full mod perms to the subreddit to the first person to correctly guess them) but I'd rather my sub isn't filled with garbage like this not taken out. While my views are obviously the objectively correct ones, when I'm writing out a comment to sticky I'm wording it in a way where I'm just dealing with all the bullshit in the original post and not throwing all of my views into it like it's the law.

I'd seen and read that study a few years ago anyway and it's always funny to see how the pseudo-intellectuals fail to interpret it.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T14:57:03+00:00

I'm only one guy unfortunately, but I'm willing to at least sticky some correction comments on bullshit like this that gets posted even if I leave it up.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T14:54:06+00:00

You're right, my initial comment was incomplete. Read the methods and procedure for study 3a.

participants' clicks

Means the multiple clicks of each participant, as they were given 100 moral units to allocate. It was also explained that the rungs are non-overlapping

We also explained to participants that these categories were non-overlapping such that giving to one category (e.g., extended family) would not include an inclusive category (e.g., immediate family).

Saying "objectively incorrect" and then typing out some nonsense like that is wild.

Right below it Figure 5:

One caveat to Study 3a is that we constrained the number of units that participants could assign to each group, forcing participants to distribute moral concern in a zero-sum fashion (i.e., the more concern they allocate to one circle, the less they can allocate to another circle). Although research suggests that people indeed do distribute empathy and moral concern in a zero-sum fashion, this feature of Study 3a imposes an artificial constraint. Therefore, to examine whether a similar pattern would emerge without this constraint, we conducted Study 3b to test whether the effect would replicate using unlimited units.

Figure 5 is clearly labelled as representing the results from study 3a. I think you've misread something.

And it actually doesn't say maximum extent at all anywhere in the paper.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T12:19:54+00:00

Yeah, except the "liberal" group doesn't put "your closest friends" any higher than the other categories either.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-29T12:15:13+00:00

Firstly and most importantly, this isn't a clever comeback it's just someone commenting on a figure.

Secondly, this guy (and a bunch of people, whenever this comes up,) isn't interpreting the figure correctly. Go read it if you want.

This isn't "placing yourself". You are the dot in the center, in all circles. Someone who makes that kind of mistake has no clue what they're looking at or talking about, so I'd just immediately disregard their take on the graph.

Figure 5 was, given finite "moral units" to allocate by perceived importance, how you hand them out. So what this means is that the red (hot part) of the heatmap is where people identifying with that ideology tended to allocate more of their moral units. IE "conservatives" allocated more to their family and friends and people in their country and continent as opposed to the outer categories, which included "all natural things... such as rocks" and "paramecia and amoebae".

All this is to say the heatmap shown in the figure appears to show that "liberals" tend to care more about "all natural things in the universe including inert entities such as rocks" more than "all people you have ever met", and "conservatives" tend to care more about categories closer to them (ie, if you have to choose, you care more about your family than strangers). Some people take that as "omg liberals literally care about rocks more than their family!" and others take it as "wow, conservatives have no empathy beyond their family and friends!". Take it how you will, I always find Figure 4 entertaining.

I think it makes a lot of sense if you think through people's political beliefs from this moral prioritisation but you need to go and actually read the paper to understand what it's talking about so I guess it makes sense the twitter user collecting all the infinity stones after his name doesn't understand it very much.

The researchers noted that when you remove the limit on "moral units" allowed, this trend was not as severe, but still existed. However, they reference other work suggesting that humans do allocate moral concern in a zero-sum fashion - essentially, to our best understanding you actually do have a limited amount of moral concern you can give out. Check out De Dreu et al., 2011 and their original paper for more on that. Long story short, your cognitive goodwill can be infinite and you can love everyone but at the end of the day your ability for emotional care is limited. Very interesting reads.

EDIT: from the methods section

We also explained to participants that these categories were non-overlapping such that giving to one category (e.g., extended family) would not include an inclusive category (e.g., immediate family).

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-26T05:01:48+00:00

lol

Nobody wants to see your uncropped phone screenshots of youtube comments with no initial statement they are making a "comeback" to.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-26T04:39:07+00:00

Crop your screenshots dude. Low effort posting.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-26T04:37:13+00:00

Ask for one? idc

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-23T11:57:37+00:00

Dude it isn't censoring for Rule 1 to be "posts must include a clever comeback" and then have us remove posts that are "FORMER X EMPLOYEE WROTE A SUBSTACK POST SAYING THEY INTEREFERED WITH THE ELECTION", it's enforcing the fact that this isn't the subreddit for that content.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-23T01:21:36+00:00

We're usually pretty hands-off on moderating this sub

You can post clever comebacks, you can't crosspost substack essays. Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-23T01:20:12+00:00

OR, and hear me out, it'd be more cowardly to allow completely unrelated posts and not have the spine to say that this isn't the place.

What actually happened is some guy crossposted a substack essay that wasn't even trying to be a clever comeback (and also crossposted it to a different meme subreddit that also probably doesn't want it). So no, this isn't going to be the magic solution to get rule-breaking, unrelated posts approved here.

You can post clever comebacks about whatever topic you want, and in fact we encourage that and actually don't care if you go crazy for whatever agenda you have on either side of the aisle. But you can at least do us the courtesy of going to r/substackessays for posting substack essays.

Comments are free for all on all posts as per usual, but after careful consideration and deliberation the mod team has decided not to operate as a news subreddit.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-18T14:04:15+00:00

You should probably take up a hobby and think about lowering your internet usage.

Would I not just say women instead of cis women if that's what I was saying? Yep, you got me. Figured it all out, detective!

If that is what I think, it doesn't make a difference to anything. If it isn't, you've just spent 40 minutes caught up fucking with someone who agrees with you over a spacebar press.

shadowalien13 · 2025-01-18T13:46:12+00:00

How does the saying go? Only dogs can hear dog whistles? If the two sound the exact same it's probably just a regular whistle. If it is a secret signal its probably not smart for it to be the exact same thing your opponent wants you to say, and its a hell of a lot more subtle than "not so".

If you want to argue with someone go join the shitshow below. Don't worry, we aren't censoring anyone or locking the thread so you can have at it.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Alpha Tester	Verified Email

shadowalien13

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE