Going green makes you mean!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99161
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 10:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Going green makes you mean!
Posted By: Blacksword
Subject: Going green makes you mean!
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 00:48
|
Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to lie, cheat and steal.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal" rel="nofollow - The mean greens.. Not sure about this, but quite funny.. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 03:47
|
Conservonazi propaganda... Interesting that it leads off with Al Gore. He is hardly the spokesman for liberalism. His wife was anti-music. He sold off Current TV to Al Jazeera (I have no bones to pick with them) and destroyed some good shows. The thing I resent most is the loss of John Fugelsang's show. This sounds an awful lot like they had had predetermined the outcome and slanted their study to get the reults they wanted.... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 04:14
^^^ I bet a lot of studys do that. You could probably prove that greenies are more likely to paint their &rse blue on a Sunday than everyone else if you know how, and as individuals we choose what to believe and what not to largely dependiong on what we WANT to believe. That's just my opinion...  Gore is the worlds leading faux greenie though isn't he. Odd that the Guardian should report on this, as it's a left/liberal paper. I would expect to see something like this in our Daily Mail newspaper, which in the UK is like the Infowars of tabloid newspapers. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 05:15
|
Both the article and the study are 4 years old. There were doubts about the methods used in the study at the time of publication (as the article mentions, unfortunately the links are dead). Reading through the study paper itself (and not the newspaper conclusions), it seems like very naive "set of experiments" to me. The original study just goes to show why psychology and sociology are not real sciences as it fails to remember that correlation does not imply causation. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 07:35
New study shows most people are  holes. Source: 45 years putting up with the human race.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 08:10
My study is 10 years younger and it reaches the same conclusion. Remarkable. Absolute science at work. ------------- 
|
The Doctor wrote:Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 08:48
 Well, I think we can take that as scientific fact then. I can smell that Nobel Prize coming our way. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 09:17
|
Just the trip to Stockholm to get the prize will be worth it -------------
|
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 14:24
and smoking weed makes you violent...
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 14:41
|
Well, momentarily it does -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 14:59
Yep. People murdering cheetohs and twinkies indiscriminately. It's disgusting.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 15:02
|
I am absolutely sure that being Blue makes you mean?  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: August 01 2014 at 18:18
|
ask Dr Manhatten or Stitch -------------  
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 03 2014 at 01:03
|
They're certainly more irritating. Shut up about the CIA and let me buy fluoride mouthwash in peace.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 03 2014 at 13:14
I think you can make a good case for Gore being a faux green. I still haven't gotten over of his killing of Current TV... And his wife, Tipsy doing the whole PMRC thing... Having said that, he would have been a much better president than W. We'd still have a lot of bones to pick with him, but I don't think he would have let us get attacked on 911. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 04 2014 at 14:14
That's a bit harsh. The standards in the fields are unfortunately low, but it's hard to say that psychology isn't a science. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: August 04 2014 at 14:44
|
Questions about the validity of the study's methods aside, I am not surprised to see that conclusion. Other studies have found, for example, that exercising http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659377" rel="nofollow - self-restraint leads to pervasive anger . There was another funny study that found http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/the-rich-drive-differently-a-study-suggests/" rel="nofollow - Prius drivers are a****les . And let's not forget the manipulable effects of the expectation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28social_psychology%29" rel="nofollow - reciprocity . I can think of a dozen reasons I'd expect this outcome regardless of methods. ------------- Hail Eris! 
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: August 04 2014 at 16:01
| I hate this thread already, just like my floss. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 04 2014 at 16:07
|
"Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to lie, cheat and steal " Yes because usually they are richer people. And a recent study found a correlation between wealth and those three behaviors you mentioned. -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 04 2014 at 16:24
 ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 05 2014 at 01:40
|
I don't know if "green consumers" are less kind to others and more likely to cheat and steal, but I do suspect that they are susceptible to being hoaxed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 05 2014 at 02:50
 Don't open that ca of worms.. The discussion is around 'moral balancing' not the gulliblity or otherwise of greenies. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2014 at 13:44
 yeah, I went a tad OTT there and my crass generalisation was indeed harsh. However, I think http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Green%20Products%20Psych%20Sci.pdf" rel="nofollow - this particular study is specious and perhaps displays a degree of bias confirmation. To be taken seriously as a science it needs to raise the standards.
'Moral balancing' isn't trading-off a one act with a morally opposite one, it is the 'golden mean' between two extremes. In the case of going green, moral balancing would be choosing mid-priced farm-assured instead of the expensive free-range or cheap battery-farmed. Conversely trading-off buying the ethically questionable fois gras by subsequently purchasing ethically wholesome free-range eggs would not be a moral balance (it is debatable whether that is even guilt-easing). Moral balancing is something that is applied before, not after, the act. It's probably worth mentioning that "green consumer" as used in this study is too vague and not defined. There is also more to going green than just consumerism, but since consumerism was the only measure of "green" used in the study that's the only part of it I'm referring to here. Green-consumerism does not necessarily involve any morality at all: for example 'organic' is a green choice but not a moral choice. In that respect it is a selfish choice because it is perceived that 'organic' is better for the consumer, the organic-only green consumer has made a personal choice that affects no one but themselves. Green choices that are moral would be those that are concerned with ethics in relation to the well-being of the animal or the producer, examples of those would be free-range and fair-trade. However even those can be selfish choices based upon the perception that they are also better products for the consumer, in fact that is exactly how they are marketed - they taste better, they are healthier, they are better for you. In contrast non-green products are depicted as unhealthy, full of nasty chemicals and bad for you. It could be argued that green-consumerism is purely about "self" and thus green-consumers are inherently self-centred and 'mean'. The problem with psychological studies is they are subject to psychology themselves, that is the nature of the 'science'; both the participants and those conducting the study are part of any experiments conducted. Assessing morality in a lab experiment (if such a thing is ever possible) cannot avoid hoaxing and gullibility since the experiments carry a level of inherent duplicity within them: the participants were randomly assigned to "green" and "conventional"; they were told the tasks were unrelated; they were told "they had been randomly paired with another person in a different room, when there was none" and that "they had been randomly assigned to the initiator’s role (even though they all played that role)". Also, the "dictator game" used in the study is more a measure of maturity than morality and is related to self-image and how they perceive that image is seen by others. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 05 2014 at 21:07
Yeah after having read through that this seems like rubbish. Priming results like these have been failing to hold up to repeatability, and I would be surprised if this one didn't as well. Also, was this written in word? What kind of academic paper is this? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |