Comments
fizzaz t1_iy3n14o wrote
Please. Pleaseeeeee.
TheBroMagnon t1_iy4fit3 wrote
I have a hunch that certain topics are practically paid to be made popular on here - especially the social science ones.
rocketseeker t1_iy5cml4 wrote
right????? Hasn't it been past the obvious line for a long time? I've been following this sub for a while now, do mods exist here?
[deleted] t1_iy3kug8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy3p6gy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy3qeze wrote
[deleted]
Moont1de t1_iy3r2fq wrote
> If it's real science they'll publish somewhere else, with genetic data.
What genetic data exactly do you think would make this specific study more scientific?
Yashema t1_iy4g5sl wrote
For accurately relaying the conclusion of a psychological paper that it links directly to? We should ban something on a science reddit for being informative?
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4mrpl wrote
There are better and worse studies. Psypost doesn't appear to distinguish based on quality, probably because their business model is making ad revenue from as many studies as possible.
Then for whatever reason, low quality studies are posted here with the link to Psypost rather than the actual study.
Yashema t1_iy4pbmo wrote
> Psypost doesn't appear to distinguish based on quality, probably because their business model is making ad revenue from as many studies as possible.
Psypost doesnt publish studies, they just provide further context for often paywalled studies.
The study has to be from a journal of a certain impact score or it gets removed from the sub.
> Then for whatever reason, low quality studies are posted here with the link to Psypost rather than the actual study.
What makes this a low quality study? It seems lazy to attack Psypost which is nothing more than a online site that does press releases for psychologically focused studies while linking directly to the study.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4t88z wrote
I would rather lazily attack Psypost for publicizing low quality studies than vigilantly defend Psypost for publicizing low quality studies. We must have different motivators, c'est la vie.
Yashema t1_iy4uncr wrote
What makes the current study being discussed in the Psypost article low quality? You have not addressed that despite me asking multiple times.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy50a4q wrote
> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?
>> Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.
>>> What makes the current study being discussed in the Psypost article low quality? You have not addressed that despite me asking multiple times.
-.- You evidently have more time to waste than I do. Cheers.
Yashema t1_iy50vty wrote
> Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.
In the Psypost article:
> Study participants completed an assessment of sexual distress that used items from the Sexual Complaint Screener for Men (SCS-M), of body image self-consciousness (Male Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale), partner-oriented sexual perfectionism (Multidimensional Sexual Perfectionism Questionnaire) and pathological narcissistic traits of vulnerable, and grandiose narcissism (Pathological Narcissism Inventory, PNI)
They measure two different things in the field of psychology.
> You evidently have more time to waste than I do. Cheers.
You evidently have no ability to follow scientific discussion and can't even read a simple press release.
Cheers
Kipzi t1_iy4iy87 wrote
This is about as informative as "breathing polluted air bad". Almost always low quality posts from that particular site I've noticed.
Yashema t1_iy4jf1q wrote
What makes the post low quality? And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4n5t3 wrote
> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?
Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.
Yashema t1_iy4p536 wrote
They are not definitionally correlated and are two different concepts which is why this paper south to correlate them.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy4tngp wrote
I was not expecting "Nuh-uh" as a reply.
Yashema t1_iy4uwwe wrote
Again, if you only read the context provided by PsyPost you would see your equivocation of the two terms shows an incorrect understanding of how the terms are defined in the field of psychology:
> Study participants completed an assessment of sexual distress that used items from the Sexual Complaint Screener for Men (SCS-M), of body image self-consciousness (Male Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale), partner-oriented sexual perfectionism (Multidimensional Sexual Perfectionism Questionnaire) and pathological narcissistic traits of vulnerable, and grandiose narcissism (Pathological Narcissism Inventory, PNI).
The two concepts measure different things.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_iy511fn wrote
Calling terms "definitionally correlated" is not "equivocation". There seem to be a lot of terms here that you don't understand.
I have no more time for this unproductive conversation. Cheers.
Yashema t1_iy523zb wrote
Again the Psypost press release cannot be any more clear that the two terms are measured by separate scales. You apparently understand little of psychology.
I assume most of your discussions are unproductive if you double down when shown to be wrong.
Cheers.
[deleted] t1_iy5pqu7 wrote
[removed]
kifn2 t1_iy3ehqv wrote
>Pleasant sexual activities are an important component of the overall well-being of a person.
This is probably just me, but whenever I seek advice for dealing with a lack of sex, the first paragraph usually says something like, "It's totally normal to not be sexually active and you can definitely have a normal, happy life." Yet, there are all these other articles that say something like the above.
Moont1de t1_iy3iseg wrote
I’d wager that it’s important for most people but not for all, meaning that if you don’t have it you can still live a happy life but if a sufficient amount of people dont have it then it’s chaos
Coidzor t1_iy3zcbj wrote
It's good to not have people beat themselves up about being lonely and to know that it's not a freakish existence to be single but most people have needs for emotional intimacy and even sexual intimacy that improve their well-being when met.
kifn2 t1_iy42bz3 wrote
It's kind of tough to not make a judgment about one's self when it's clear that, after decades of trying, absolutely no one wants anything to do with you. Like there has to be a reason because it seems like other people can build relationships. I don't know anyone else who's family treats them as if they prefer they don't exist and most people I know have at least one friend. I just want to know what's wrong with me, but all the advice I read tells me there isn't anything wrong.
catscanmeow t1_iy52efb wrote
I just hope your problem isnt related to you not lowering your standards enough. A TON of men who complain about being single are single because their standards are unrealistic.
Im sure there's tons of women you dont find attractive that would love to be with you, theyre lonely too.
kifn2 t1_iy8gvzd wrote
Of course I've considered that but what would be the point in trying to pursue women that I'm not attracted to? This is all subjective, but I don't think my standards are too high. I'm not looking for flawless beauty queens or anything like that. Just someone I'm at least somewhat attracted to. I've tried being just friends with girls that i'm not attracted to, but that often ends with feelings getting hurt.
[deleted] t1_iy8hvqm wrote
[removed]
Sololololololol t1_iy48vht wrote
Eh, idk if I’d downplay it that much. I’d say it’s the single most important thing outside of needs that will outright kill you if you lack them.
It’s not just a “oh this can improve your life” thing, it’s a “critically important part of existence” thing, even if you can point to a few edge cases of people who are 100% happy with never having any human companionship.
[deleted] t1_iy3uzv6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iy3v1bj wrote
[removed]
NotMaintainable t1_iy54woo wrote
I view phrases from most scientific articles as if they were stated from somebody looking at a graph, or table, while speaking/writing.
For example, in a line graph of sexual encounters of individuals, there's a range between 0 and 50 for each month (or higher, who knows). Every value in that range is "normal"; however, that does not equate to those ranges being average.
Semantic. But so are scientific publications.
chrisdh79 OP t1_iy3878u wrote
From the article: An online survey of Italian men found that body image self-consciousness contributes to sexual distress. In other words, being aware of how one’s body looks like during physical intimacy with one’s partner contributes to feelings of frustration, anxiety and worry regarding sexual activity. The study was published in the journal Sexual and Relationship Therapy.
Sexual health contributes to one’s overall quality of life. Pleasant sexual activities are an important component of the overall well-being of a person. Due to this, sexual dysfunction or the lack of sexual satisfaction creates a potentially negative impact on the quality of life.
Studies of sexual health done on women have shown the importance of body image self-consciousness for sexual functioning. In extreme cases, negative body image self-consciousness can impair sexual functioning, but positive body image self-consciousness has been shown to contribute to better sexual functioning in both women and men.
Previous studies have found that body image dissatisfaction tends to be greater in women than in men. However, men are also affected by body dissatisfaction and the social imposed standards of masculinity and muscularity.
kony412 t1_iy414k4 wrote
So you're safe if you don't have sex!
[deleted] t1_iy3bswp wrote
[removed]
st4n13l t1_iy4g8db wrote
>Vulnerable narcissism and body image self-consciousness contribute to sexual distress in men
I feel attacked
slickhedstrong t1_iy5iuts wrote
what the heck is vulnerable narcissism
Kipzi t1_iy5kkje wrote
People who get hostile when you don't put them on a pedestal and are arrogant in a quiet way
mjduce t1_iy69evb wrote
What about people who are quietly arrogant, but don't demand to be put on a pedestal?
Kipzi t1_iy69wxr wrote
I googled it because I was confused too.
Meet the vulnerable (covert) narcissist
Often referred to as “covert narcissists,” the vulnerable narcissist (like the overt narcissist) has a narcissistic personality disorder.
However, vulnerable narcissists hide their narcissistic traits from the world, and unlike their overt counterparts, covert or vulnerable narcissists usually appear to be shy, reserved, and modest individuals. People with covert narcissism
Despite the mask they present to the world, vulnerable narcissists are chronically envious of others, have difficulty handling criticism, and lack empathy toward others. Woman with borderline personality disorder Covert narcissist
The covert narcissist is extremely sensitive to any slights in criticism and constantly compares themselves to family, friends, and co-workers.
People with covert narcissism usually prefer to be alone, mainly because of their hypersensitivity to other people’s judgments or perceived criticisms
ilikepizza2much t1_iy7s4ga wrote
I’ve dated someone like this. What’s so confusing and manipulative is that their selfishness is wrapped up in self pity
AutoModerator t1_iy384ir wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iy3eidv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy3ga27 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy3nrpd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy40fy9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy5hc43 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy5uj2m wrote
[removed]
JDarbsR t1_iy6l8rn wrote
Heyyyyy I didn't know I was in this study!
[deleted] t1_iy6odj1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy76qcx wrote
[removed]
Several-Good-9259 t1_iy4kd79 wrote
I feel like they are definitely about to completely describe something that might have a foundation based in factulish sand... But I could be wrong now that I read that and question all the things.
sad1956red t1_iy3n1xy wrote
Hahahaha. Women too I bet.
[deleted] t1_iy3dajd wrote
[deleted]
Kipzi t1_iy3d1dn wrote
I wish psypost was banned from this subreddit.