WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?
I view understand most studies in the soft (pseudo) sciences as perpetuating ‘what’s wrong’ with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference (equality) denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental regardless of sex, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the opposites (the opposite of equality) created by sex differences in cognition, with feminine short term exclusive empathizing avoiding responsibility to obtain status versus masculine long term general systematizing to seek responsibility to obtain status.
Most conflict in social media, and the reason for its continued investment, is due to the expression of attention seeking (validation), virtue signaling(moral bias or ‘team’ membership) status-seeking (material), and altruistic punishment (defense of status, and moral bias).
Most signals of altruistic punishment (negativity) in social media are due to such media being the first time we can easily admix groups into moral conflict where normally we would separate in space, time, and socialization by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in our moral valuation that’s determined by our cognitive sexual dimorphism.
One of the principles I teach is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute