Another psychological study !

mete · July 30, 2006, 11:48 AM

Another reason to distrust psychologists .Don't clean your gun with hot sauce ! www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206156,00.html

Bender711 · July 30, 2006, 12:02 PM

I would have put a buch in no matter what so I dont think that this proves alot. It souds like another gun grabber statistic that dosent really mean anything in the real world.

And what about women does in change any thing with them?

Roberta X · July 30, 2006, 12:53 PM

...Women got some testosterone, too; it comes from the adrenal gland and affects aggression and sex drive in us, pretty much like it does in y'all. Just not nearly so much of it, whew!

And so what?

There are serious, serious things wrong with this study and the most serious is that the men are just a random sample. They're not gunnies. Unless one wishes to credit firearms with some magic evil-bad power, this "study" tests not response to firearms but response to the image our culture projects onto firearms.

Okay, show of hands, how many here have groaned aloud at the stupid, technically wrong and/or prejudicial treatment given personal weapons and those who possess them in the media?

Next question: by what means did most of the boys in the study encounter guns, gun-handling and those who handle guns?

...Wanna bet they'd've shown more aggression and higher testosterone levels after a "Dirty Harry" movie as opposed to watching some PC kiddie animated feature?

That's all the study studied. Wasn't about guns per se and it wasn't about gunnies like me and thee (well, thee, anyway); it was about the perceived image of guns. We gotta get more men out of the movie theatre and onto the firing line!

Heist · July 30, 2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Unless one wishes to credit fireams with some magic evil-bad power, this "study" tests not response to firearms but response to the image our culture projects onto firearms.

Ding ding ding.

Now, how would the study go if they performed the first experiment, then took some of the gun handlers for a day of serious and technical range instruction, then repeated the first experiment?

MeekAndMild · July 30, 2006, 03:02 PM

I hope this is true! We need to do a controlled study in the 40+ age group! Imagine how much damage to Establishment Antigun Liberalism if docs started prescribing guns as a treatment for falling testosterone levels.

BTW, the hot sauce thing might be looked upon as altruistic rather than aggressive behavior. Everybody knows that hot sauce increases beta endorphin levels so the more you eat the better you feel. The guys are just making sure the next guy gets enough hot sauce to enjoy.

mete · July 30, 2006, 03:48 PM

But they weren't even real guns ! That shows that many can't differentiate between real and artificial .Of course that's why so many guys will chase a silicone enhanced , bleached blonde instead of the real thing !!

Wyo Cowboy · July 30, 2006, 04:28 PM

A recent, federally funded study was released which found that the vast majority of gun owners routinely move from place to place in (gasp!!) either two or four wheeled conveyances. Furthermore, some of these gun-crazed operators of self-locomotive vehicles will occationally violate state and/or municipal regulations in said vehical. Whether these violations are intentional or unintentional is irrelivant, the study found. Owning a "gun" and violating traffic laws are directly linked thus adding evidence to the need to ban gun-ownership. Such a ban would obiously result in a reduction in traffic law violations and thereby create a safer world.

/

ps: For those who believe that EVERYTHING which they see on the internet is real... This isn't. It's call sarcasm.

Varmint Eviscerator · July 30, 2006, 06:59 PM

Wells, It's viable in some ways, just because the media "projected" an image or feeling connected with firearms doesnt mean the results were invalid for that reason. A gun is a gun, and if the media projects an image so what-it still proves that some people of a certain age group ( sarcastic tone "on") of a certain class, on a certain day of a certain bringing up react in a certain fasion to a firearm. Have you also thought that test with someone who has been around firearms and someone who knows safety and also knows how to RESPOND. It needs to be over an extended period of time.
Oh and BTW just because some one dropped the f bomb after drinking "hot" water doesnt mean their brain will skip past aallllllll the firearms training and ideas of restraint and Consequence of action. Lastly, its completely irrelevant in the long run, cars are also proven to incite aggresion cause the body to produce excess levels of testosterone-we should out law then to,right?

Lastly, who here has said "I am going to KILL THAT U&@#$$!!!!" Abviously you didnt kill them otherwise you wouldnt be here. Just because a temper flares doesnt mean you are going to kill anyone!!!
Chase

Heist · July 30, 2006, 10:37 PM

I fail to understand why most of the posters here have a problem with this study, apparently on some visceral level.

Bender711 · July 30, 2006, 10:56 PM

I think we should ban the color red. It does the same thing.

candr44 · July 30, 2006, 11:19 PM

I find it hard to believe that story. They didn't give enough information on how they conducted the test. What kind of controls were in place for selecting the subjects and did they manipulate the results with their wording or tone of voice to the subjects? Did they manipulate the results for one group by using a childs toy that is of no interest to a young man? What if they replaced the toy with a Harley motorcycle?

They don't even know what the results of the test are. They say it is inconclusive and guns MAY cause testosterone to rise not that they definately will cause it to rise. Then the author's article goes on to manipulate the reader into thinking that guns cause it to rise and create agression through a manipulative guilt by association technique. This is just sensationalism to sell a story, make a name for the psychologist, or it's propaganda.

Whenever I hear some study saying may, might, or maybe it is the same as saying I don't know and this study is a waist of time and money.

Heist · July 30, 2006, 11:40 PM

If you can't even spell psychologist, what does that say about the probable veracity of your opinion?

CDH · July 31, 2006, 06:10 AM

A study like that is no different from the typical political poll taken today.

Just as poll takers can and do easily slant their questions in a way to get the results the poll takers WANT, you have to look at this study itself in the same way.
You don't have to use your imagination very much to realize that the people who did this "study" knew the results they WANTED from the get go. Think about it, it's a very silly test.
Their was no demographic spread among the subjects (why not test ALL age groups, backgrounds and women as well?), and they used a TOY gun... what's with that?. What a joke.

This was set up from the get-go so that a certain RESULT could be published even before they started. The publishing of a result was the purpose of this "test". The mechanics of the study were inconsequential to the people who organized it. Of course, have we not all become used to that by now?

Now don't get me started on "Global Warming"..

Carter

MeekAndMild · July 31, 2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

I fail to understand why most of the posters here have a problem with this study, apparently on some visceral level.

I have no visceral trouble with the study at all. I recognize its flaws, too numerous to count. It sounds like a pretty typical undergraduate study in these times where grant money seems to flow freely from dubious sources.

I see the humor in it too. Poor Illinois guys, just getting one drop of hot sauce after a life of dull yankee food! I hope that the LSU Department of Psychology tries to replicate results using the same techniques. "What do you mean, we've got to put water in the sauce? That would ruin it!"

Back in the day when I was an undergraduate we had real studies, complete with rat guillotines and brain blenders! Talk about visceral response! :barf:

JSalcedo · July 31, 2006, 11:45 AM

If like the article says just touching a pellet gun raises your testosterone 100 times then why don't our olympic athletes do it?

**Bud Helms** · July 31, 2006, 11:53 AM

Oh, JeeZ! Your right! Keep them olympic wimmens away from 'em! They'll have an overload and test positive!

Eghad · July 31, 2006, 12:54 PM

LOL@ the doc who did that.

She should go to prison and test violent offenders and she will come to the conclusion that criminals with weapons are far more dangerous to society than responsible gun owners.

I wonder what kind of results she would have gotten with a group of older experienced shooters whose first thought after shooting is that they now have to go home and clean the firearm. Of course she may have to have a Victoria;s secret model in sexy underwear with eau de CLP on to get a rise in the male hormone level.

oystermick · July 31, 2006, 03:01 PM

I'm curious about the "Desert Eagle automatic handgun."

Northern Sod Breaker · August 7, 2006, 10:40 PM

After I managed to quit lauging two questions come up. One the person studied is a women which should imediatly raise red flags as to how letigimate the study of men is. Second the story makes no refference of pre-existing attitudes which would skew the study. I personaly would be interested to see the demographic makeup of the group given BBs gun and those given Mouse trap games.

July 30, 2006, 11:48 AM	#1
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	Another psychological study ! Another reason to distrust psychologists .Don't clean your gun with hot sauce ! www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206156,00.html

July 30, 2006, 12:02 PM	#2
Bender711 Senior Member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 340	I would have put a buch in no matter what so I dont think that this proves alot. It souds like another gun grabber statistic that dosent really mean anything in the real world. And what about women does in change any thing with them? __________________ From a Mod "Seeing as how "butt Smurf" is not profanity in the usual sense and humorously creative, I'll leave this up for now"

July 30, 2006, 12:53 PM	#3
Roberta X Senior Member Join Date: May 2, 2006 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 165	...Women got some testosterone, too; it comes from the adrenal gland and affects aggression and sex drive in us, pretty much like it does in y'all. Just not nearly so much of it, whew! And so what? There are serious, serious things wrong with this study and the most serious is that the men are just a random sample. They're not gunnies. Unless one wishes to credit firearms with some magic evil-bad power, this "study" tests not response to firearms but response to the image our culture projects onto firearms. Okay, show of hands, how many here have groaned aloud at the stupid, technically wrong and/or prejudicial treatment given personal weapons and those who possess them in the media? Next question: by what means did most of the boys in the study encounter guns, gun-handling and those who handle guns? ...Wanna bet they'd've shown more aggression and higher testosterone levels after a "Dirty Harry" movie as opposed to watching some PC kiddie animated feature? That's all the study studied. Wasn't about guns per se and it wasn't about gunnies like me and thee (well, thee, anyway); it was about the perceived image of guns. We gotta get more men out of the movie theatre and onto the firing line! __________________ Proud rider of a 2006 Bajaj Chetak motorscooter. --And just bought a small motorcycle. I've got the fever bad. Girl Gunblogger: The Adventures Of Roberta X Last edited by Roberta X; July 30, 2006 at 03:07 PM.

July 30, 2006, 03:02 PM	#5
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	I hope this is true! We need to do a controlled study in the 40+ age group! Imagine how much damage to Establishment Antigun Liberalism if docs started prescribing guns as a treatment for falling testosterone levels. BTW, the hot sauce thing might be looked upon as altruistic rather than aggressive behavior. Everybody knows that hot sauce increases beta endorphin levels so the more you eat the better you feel. The guys are just making sure the next guy gets enough hot sauce to enjoy. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. Last edited by MeekAndMild; July 31, 2006 at 06:51 AM.

July 30, 2006, 06:59 PM	#8
Varmint Eviscerator Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2005 Location: about an hour north of the big apple Posts: 549	Wells, It's viable in some ways, just because the media "projected" an image or feeling connected with firearms doesnt mean the results were invalid for that reason. A gun is a gun, and if the media projects an image so what-it still proves that some people of a certain age group ( sarcastic tone "on") of a certain class, on a certain day of a certain bringing up react in a certain fasion to a firearm. Have you also thought that test with someone who has been around firearms and someone who knows safety and also knows how to RESPOND. It needs to be over an extended period of time. Oh and BTW just because some one dropped the f bomb after drinking "hot" water doesnt mean their brain will skip past aallllllll the firearms training and ideas of restraint and Consequence of action. Lastly, its completely irrelevant in the long run, cars are also proven to incite aggresion cause the body to produce excess levels of testosterone-we should out law then to,right? Lastly, who here has said "I am going to KILL THAT U&@#$$!!!!" Abviously you didnt kill them otherwise you wouldnt be here. Just because a temper flares doesnt mean you are going to kill anyone!!! Chase __________________ Ahh, a good old bolt action,a bolt is a remedy for time, afternoons with our fathers and their fathers, for the mighty olympic shooters, for the wanna be's,for the time of youth in the woods, for the young.......the old, it is timeless, classic, sleek-a piece of art forever to remain in our memories, our hearts, our future.

July 30, 2006, 03:48 PM	#6
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	But they weren't even real guns ! That shows that many can't differentiate between real and artificial .Of course that's why so many guys will chase a silicone enhanced , bleached blonde instead of the real thing !!

July 30, 2006, 04:28 PM	#7
Wyo Cowboy Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 2005 Location: Northern Wyoming Posts: 343	A recent, federally funded study was released which found that the vast majority of gun owners routinely move from place to place in (gasp!!) either two or four wheeled conveyances. Furthermore, some of these gun-crazed operators of self-locomotive vehicles will occationally violate state and/or municipal regulations in said vehical. Whether these violations are intentional or unintentional is irrelivant, the study found. Owning a "gun" and violating traffic laws are directly linked thus adding evidence to the need to ban gun-ownership. Such a ban would obiously result in a reduction in traffic law violations and thereby create a safer world. / ps: For those who believe that EVERYTHING which they see on the internet is real... This isn't. It's call sarcasm.

July 30, 2006, 10:37 PM	#9
Heist Junior member Join Date: June 6, 2005 Location: ETN, Again Posts: 760	I fail to understand why most of the posters here have a problem with this study, apparently on some visceral level.

July 30, 2006, 10:56 PM	#10
Bender711 Senior Member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 340	I think we should ban the color red. It does the same thing. __________________ From a Mod "Seeing as how "butt Smurf" is not profanity in the usual sense and humorously creative, I'll leave this up for now"

July 30, 2006, 11:19 PM	#11
candr44 Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2006 Posts: 481	I find it hard to believe that story. They didn't give enough information on how they conducted the test. What kind of controls were in place for selecting the subjects and did they manipulate the results with their wording or tone of voice to the subjects? Did they manipulate the results for one group by using a childs toy that is of no interest to a young man? What if they replaced the toy with a Harley motorcycle? They don't even know what the results of the test are. They say it is inconclusive and guns MAY cause testosterone to rise not that they definately will cause it to rise. Then the author's article goes on to manipulate the reader into thinking that guns cause it to rise and create agression through a manipulative guilt by association technique. This is just sensationalism to sell a story, make a name for the psychologist, or it's propaganda. Whenever I hear some study saying may, might, or maybe it is the same as saying I don't know and this study is a waist of time and money. Last edited by candr44; July 31, 2006 at 09:03 PM.

July 30, 2006, 11:40 PM	#12
Heist Junior member Join Date: June 6, 2005 Location: ETN, Again Posts: 760	If you can't even spell psychologist, what does that say about the probable veracity of your opinion?

July 31, 2006, 06:10 AM	#13
CDH Senior Member Join Date: August 18, 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 941	A study like that is no different from the typical political poll taken today. Just as poll takers can and do easily slant their questions in a way to get the results the poll takers WANT, you have to look at this study itself in the same way. You don't have to use your imagination very much to realize that the people who did this "study" knew the results they WANTED from the get go. Think about it, it's a very silly test. Their was no demographic spread among the subjects (why not test ALL age groups, backgrounds and women as well?), and they used a TOY gun... what's with that?. What a joke. This was set up from the get-go so that a certain RESULT could be published even before they started. The publishing of a result was the purpose of this "test". The mechanics of the study were inconsequential to the people who organized it. Of course, have we not all become used to that by now? Now don't get me started on "Global Warming".. Carter Last edited by CDH; July 31, 2006 at 07:18 AM.

July 31, 2006, 11:45 AM	#15
JSalcedo Member Join Date: February 22, 2002 Posts: 84	If like the article says just touching a pellet gun raises your testosterone 100 times then why don't our olympic athletes do it?

July 31, 2006, 11:53 AM	#16
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	Oh, JeeZ! Your right! Keep them olympic wimmens away from 'em! They'll have an overload and test positive!

July 31, 2006, 12:54 PM	#17
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	LOL@ the doc who did that. She should go to prison and test violent offenders and she will come to the conclusion that criminals with weapons are far more dangerous to society than responsible gun owners. I wonder what kind of results she would have gotten with a group of older experienced shooters whose first thought after shooting is that they now have to go home and clean the firearm. Of course she may have to have a Victoria;s secret model in sexy underwear with eau de CLP on to get a rise in the male hormone level. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

July 31, 2006, 03:01 PM	#18
oystermick Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Posts: 197	I'm curious about the "Desert Eagle automatic handgun." __________________ "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

August 7, 2006, 10:40 PM	#19
Northern Sod Breaker Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2005 Location: Hewitt, Minnesota Posts: 758	After I managed to quit lauging two questions come up. One the person studied is a women which should imediatly raise red flags as to how letigimate the study of men is. Second the story makes no refference of pre-existing attitudes which would skew the study. I personaly would be interested to see the demographic makeup of the group given BBs gun and those given Mouse trap games.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search