Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Medicine Star Wars Prequels Stats News

Star Wars Fans and Video Game Geeks 'More Likely To Be Narcissists,' Study Finds (independent.co.uk) 182

schwit1 writes: Those who take part in "geeky events" are more likely to have an "elevated grandiose" level of narcissism, according to a study conducted by the University of Georgia. Psychologists examined the personality traits of those who turn to "geek culture," developing a Geek Culture Engagement Scale and a Geek Identity Scale to help quantify the figures. It was found that those who scored highly on both scales were more likely to narcissists. Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars Fans and Video Game Geeks 'More Likely To Be Narcissists,' Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • by gueryjones ( 1531501 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @12:58PM (#51186185)
    They're just mad that Georgia Tech students are smarter than them and this is their way of undermining them. I'm surprised that a UGA researcher can even spell "geek."
    • Re:It's obvious (Score:5, Informative)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:32PM (#51186307) Journal
      Given that 70% of psychology experiments are unreproducible [theguardian.com], it's most likely that they have not even found a correlation.
      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        well, it's just easier to coerce it out of geeks that they feel superior - even if they're fat losers and they know they're fat losers you can get them to give answers that would mark them as feeling grandiose. especially at a geek event(well why the fuck not, they're having fun there).

        neo-nazis beat them at that score though.

        • Re:It's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @05:16PM (#51187293)

          well, it's just easier to coerce it out of geeks that they feel superior - even if they're fat losers and they know they're fat losers you can get them to give answers that would mark them as feeling grandiose. especially at a geek event(well why the fuck not, they're having fun there).

          neo-nazis beat them at that score though.

          Every counter-culture is a culture of its own. Counter-cultures, with a large enough sample size, tend to reflect the mainstream cultures from which they spawn. They're fractals. There are bullies, know-it-alls, wannabes, the self-righteous, followers, the artsy, and even nerds within every subculture. I've seen it through four major subcultures. Stereotypes like the Comic Book Collector on The Simpsons exist because someone is just about always going to fill that role with a large enough sample size. It just happens with that particular character that there are a lot of men that resemble that character both physically and in temperament, so it tends to lead to a bit of confirmation bias.

          People also don't act the same way around separate distinct groups. Someone might be meek or quiet in a more mainstream setting but be very outgoing or as the article discusses, narcissistic when they're within the subculture that they are comfortable in. Conversely, someone in a mainstream group might be the expert, and be narcissistic or at least very confident, but when they're put into a subculture suddenly they're quiet or subservient because within that particular group their skills or interests or knowledge is among the least, putting them at the bottom of the pecking order. The latter is why MIT has alumni interview applicants, to make sure that they can handle the fact that they'll likely go from being at the pinnacle of scholastic achievement in high school to close to the bottom when measured against all of the other students in college.

          • If you don't think your counter-culture has a superior point of view, how would you even know you're a part of it?

        • Yeah, inferiority expressing as apparent superiority makes it all a bit funny with these sorts of studies.

          Also, opinions towards the value of humbleness screw up the results considerably. I've met people with extreme narcissism whose value system holds up being humble as being good, so they're incredible smug dicks who won't even descend their mountain for a conversation that they started, because they see themselves as being too humble to admit knowing anything about the stuff they're smugly knowing more t

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        This was not a psychology experiment. It was a meta study, using information from anonymous surveys. So your criticism does not apply.

        • Do you think that means it's more reliable?
          • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

            I am not even sure what "reliable" means in this context.

            Just to clarify, you posted a link to an article that claims:

            Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.

            The Slashdot topic is not a psychology experiment or a cognitive study.

    • Did anyone catch the last bit there in the synopsis? Puppetry? WTF?

      I am a beautiful, amazing person who is totally into D&D, video games and robotics. However, I have never heard of this puppetry thing before. I find your ideas interesting and I wish to subscribe. Also, while I am a sexy hunk of Dungeon Master man-beast, this article look like it holds about as much water as a sieve.
      • by TWX ( 665546 )
        What level is your Dungeon Master?
      • by pla ( 258480 )
        Did anyone catch the last bit there in the synopsis? Puppetry? WTF?

        Yeah, I kinda wondered about that myself. Of all the useless skills we geeks have an interest in, I can't say I've ever met one into puppetry.

        / No, RealDolls don't count.
  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:02PM (#51186207)
    Were C-3PO and Hans Solo talking to the audience when they said that in the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?
  • You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.
    • Re:Shocking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:21PM (#51186265)

      No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.

      • That is an important distinction. I agree.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.

        You have a good point and I think that the split started in earnest in the 90s.

        Back then I started noticing people who would claim to be geeks but in fact only have the trappings of geekdom. They would say things like that they love maths or programming or astronomy or electronics or what have you, act like they did, but turn out to be so inept in whatever it was that there was little doubt they had any true interests.

        Over time, as their ranks have swelled, they seem to redefining "geek" to be someone who

        • Re:Shocking (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:42PM (#51186549)
          I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

          There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

          • Re:Shocking (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @05:11PM (#51187273) Homepage

            I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

            There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

            Shame I don't have mod points to help the person who already voted you up, as this is bloody perceptive stuff. Everyone's a bloody "geek" nowadays.

            There's actually nothing wrong with being interested in some of that stuff, but just because you know how to install apps on your Android phone and know who Alan Turing is- without having any real interest in any of his actual work- doesn't make you a geek in the same sense as him.

            I commented just yesterday [slashdot.org] that although people nowadays are generally *much* more tech-savvy in general than they were- say- ten or fifteen years ago, most people don't seem to know or care what a basic term like "digital" actually means. That's a synonym for online, or high-tech, or something, isn't it...?

            There's a guy I know at work who ticks way, *way* more of the stereotypical "geek" boxes than I do- something I've actually joked to him about. He spends lots of time playing World of Warcraft (I haven't been into computer games for the better part of 20 years), was (genuinely) excited to see the new Star Wars film (never cared about Star Wars that much myself) and apparently collected overpriced plastic anime figures at one point. (Don't think he still does as much, but then he's in his mid-thirties and in a steady relationship now). He's also pretty outgoing and far more socially skilled than I am, (#) especially in the "one of the lads" context. (He also has tendencies bordering on the neddish [wikipedia.org] when drunk). He hasn't shown any signs of being interested in science or any of the "hard" traditional geek interests- as opposed to technology- itself.

            But he's not fake- he genuinely is into all that stuff. It's just that a lot of those "geeky" interests, as they've become adopted by more people, have ceased to be the signifiers that they used to be, either of deeper interests, or of personality type.

            To be fair, even in the past, I doubt it was ever as clear cut as the stereotypes imply (even in the early 90s I knew a guy at school more skilled with computers than myself who was also sociable, outgoing and into the rave scene in a way that I wasn't). But it's probably even less so today.

            Then again, I've come to realise that I'm not remotely a "true" geek in either the old "true" sense nor in the modern superficial sense and have probably been guilty of self-stereotyping and thinking I knew myself more than I did. So maybe I'm not the person I should be comparing others to, regardless. But that's another kettle of fish.

            (#) It could be argued that the social skills- or lack of- aspect is somewhat more to do with "nerd"-ism rather than geekism. But there's nothing more geeky *or* nerdy than getting obsessed with the difference between those terms, so who gives a toss? ;-)

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Just look at what has become of the internet. It used to be that you could go online and speak to actual computer and technical experts. People who actually understood programming or component level hardware.

            These days you have a lot of kids on the internet who think that they are computer literate because they were able to toss together plug and play PC components and double click the installers for some drivers.

        • Sooo, Neil deGrasse Tyson would be a prime example. Yep, it fits.

        • by TWX ( 665546 )
          You're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, and you're confusing geeks with fandom. There have been participants in fandom since the idea started that absolutely could not participate in a technical discussion or even keep the facts of their particular favorite franchise straight. Those aren't the people that are remembered, but they've always been there. If anything they're necessary for fandom as their dollars ultimately fund all of the events including the discussion panels that they don't pa
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        I think we do not have that "geek culture" thing here in Europe. We do have some smart, technologically educated people and some of them are even fans of Star Wars or Star Trek or the like, but hardly any are sociologically awkward in the way a member of "geek culture" seems to be required to be. Most of them also know that they are quite a bit superior in their understanding of reality to the average person, but that is just a realistic take on the situation.

    • You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.

      Such thoughts are a side effect of elevated midichlorian levels. Extremely high levels lead to one thinking they are near god-like individuals who should run the universe.

    • As a recovering geek (at GA meetings we give out little pins to commemorate how many months or years we remain humble) I don't think your somewhat snarky reply is very far off. Here's my completely unqualified, half-assed armchair psychologist analysis...

      Geeks tend to be on the high end of the scale for creativity which (based entirely on my observation of a very small and not at all random set of geeks including myself) usually but not always correlates with above-average intelligence. For whatever reason,

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:09PM (#51186233)

    "Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars."

    All of which sounds totally nuts to me. In my day "geeks" were loaners. They did not have a big social circle. Not because they were basically unsociable. Mostly because they were interested in technical things, electronics, programming, maths, that most people around them had no idea or interest in.

    When did "geek" become a word to describe game playing fantasy obsessed weirdos.

     

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      When did "geek" become a word to describe game playing fantasy obsessed weirdos.

      Geeks have always been described at that. What changed was when mainstream decided that geeks were "cool" aka could make money off of us and they couldn't get away with ostracizing us anymore.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It is not Star Wars Fans or Video Game Geeks they measure, but cosplayers and such. They rarely meet the basement dweller subspecies, though those might as well be Star Wars Fans or Video Game Geeks. They just simply don't come out of hiding.

  • How is this information useful?

    Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information? How does it inform further research, how do physicians and/or psychiatrists use the information for diagnosis or treatment, what sort of "ruler" does this study build and what does it measure?

    In what way can this information be used to improve the human condition?

    There are thousands of soft-science generalizations like this, none of which is useful in any meaningful way.

    S

    • How is this information useful?

      Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information?

      Marketing.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      How is this information useful?

      That's begging the question. The media account of the paper is so garbled that it's simply not useful at all. The paper is a different story. However the usefulness of that depends on your ability to think critically, particularly about statistics, and pay attention to details. If your takeaway after skimming the paper is that "Star Wars fans are narcissists" then you're probably better off not having opinions about the paper, period.

      From what I can see the paper contains nothing that should be surpris

  • > Those who take part in "geeky events" are more likely to have an "elevated grandiose"
    > level of narcissism, according to a study conducted by the University of Georgia.

    And now that we know this, we are perfect.

  • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:45PM (#51186351) Homepage

    This article is horrible.

    Narcisissm was but one of the many things the study correlated with geekdom. Yet the article by "The Independent" talked about only that one aspect. The study actually doesn't include Star Wars as an example of geekdom since Star Wars is mainstream. The study does consider someone a geek if they mix "Star Wars" with zombies. Yet The Independent started their headline with that "Star Wars" - probably because it is so popular in the news right now and people will have knee jerk emotional reactions to it.

    I am sad that Slashdot chose to link to this article, rather than to the study itself [plos.org] which is completely free, reasonably short, and paints a different and more interesting picture. It talks about geek involvement with family, the political process, civic organizations, and long-term life goals. It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context. Yet that is exactly what The Independent did.

    • I was thinking the same thing. Star Wars is breaking every box office record. All stores are filled with Star Wars toys and other merchandise. How discriminative is that?
    • Exactly. From the abstract:
      "Geek engagement is found to be associated with elevated grandiose narcissism, extraversion, openness to experience, depression, and subjective well-being across multiple samples."

      They really went out of their way to find the most inflammatory 'interpretation' of the study they could come up with.

      • "Geek engagement is found to be associated with elevated grandiose narcissism, extraversion, ...."

        Most geeks I know are somewhat introverted.

    • It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context...

      A rough synonym of "narcissistic" is "competitive". That's not necessarily a bad thing. While most people tend to be "socially competitive" or "financially competitive", geeks tend to compete with games and "lab" or tech projects.

      Males tend to be competitive whether the subject matter is social, financial, or technical. (Different people will select dif

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, almost no "journalist" these days has the discipline, education and smarts to actually understand a study like this. Not that the study sets a high bar, but journalism used to be something smart people with ideals went for. Not anymore.

    • Slashdot articles are shit, thanks to Dice.
  • The most likely screwup is mischaracterizing a strong sense of self as grandiose when half the "normal" population is suffering from body image issues and inferiority complexes.

    • Exactly. Wish I had mod points.

      If I look at my behavior and ask how I can live like a better person *Surprise!* I'm a megalomaniac.

      Prediction: people who watch Star Trek are more likely to be hypocrites (living off a script oblivious to what's really going on inside).
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:48PM (#51186359)

    Newsflash: Folks willing to be interviewed on being 'geeky' tend to be gregarious and be quite optimistic about their own potential. Shy/anti-social 'geeks' not measured.

    Everyone's got a mixed bag of ignorance and hangups - and folks who self-label as 'geeky' in public are folks who project a willingness to focus and specialize on a small range of subjects that they admire. Many others are going to be shy or antisocial, or unwilling to put up with a 'geeky' label.

    BREAKING NEWS: DJs and Rap Artists also found to be frequently narcisistic! 'Fronting' found to be a very helpful form of marketing, and method of promoting causes in a comedic and exaggerated manner.

    FURTHER BREAKING NEWS: 'Profesional'-style wrestlers and independent entertainment wrestling groups also found to be overwhelmingly narcissistic, in a fascinating dual dynamic! When in 'face' mode, these entertainers will be narcissistic in a friendly way, and in 'heel' mode, they will be narcissistic in an overly flamboyant and violent way. These modes can change at seemingly random patterns, but usually near the start/beginning of a season.

    OMG BREAKING NEWS GUYS: Actors and many others found to be narcissistic! In a similar dynamic to 'entertainment' wrestling, this same form of narcissism seems to be almost everywhere, in most professions with a public facing component. The dynamic of trying to gather a crowd with comedy and drama seems to be steeped with various kinds of narcissism, and reactions to self-overestimation.

    It's almost as if people overestimate their own potential in order to motivate themselves to try difficult things, even if it means failure, because they might learn something or motivate others in the process!

    We must stop this plague of overestimation before it grows too large! The only logical conclusion to this process will be everyone jumping off buildings because they believe they can fly. Yes. Geeks must not believe in themselves, or our world is doomed!

    In other news, journalists frequently post articles they know has misleading information, or false or incomplete versions on of the science they're reporting on, because it builds drama and readership. Oh no - the narcissism is spreading!

    • and folks who self-label as 'geeky' in public are folks who project a willingness to focus and specialize on a small range of subjects that they admire

      It should be noted that fly-fishermen are the same way.

      Ditto pilots. And sailors. And computer programmers. And...

      Different "small range of subjects" for each, of course....

    • . . . and silly me thought that politicians would reign as the Olympic Gold Medal champions in the Narcissism competition.

    • BREAKING NEWS: DJs and Rap Artists also found to be frequently narcisistic! ...

      FURTHER BREAKING NEWS: 'Profesional'-style wrestlers and independent entertainment wrestling groups also found to be overwhelmingly narcissistic, in a fascinating dual dynamic! ...

      OMG BREAKING NEWS GUYS: Actors and many others found to be narcissistic! ...

      Please, take it easy on me! Narcissism is one thing, but to be a rapper, wrestler, *and* actor all at same time? I'm. Only. One. Man!

      Although I bet The Rock could pull that off -- good for him.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is just an example of Social Scientists demonstrating they are

    1) Not Socialist
    2) Not Scientists

  • by Fragnet ( 4224287 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:08PM (#51186417)
    A recent paper [theguardian.com] shows the majority of psychological studies aren't replicable. So you know, jog on.
  • fuck you and your pseudo studies
  • What does it say about us who enjoy Solitaire and Pong?

  • ...is Sheldon Cooper! 8-D
  • Sorry what?

    "live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics"

    Robotics requires some level of scientific understanding and education beyond LARPing, dressing up in various themed outfits, putting socks on yer hands and pretending to speak on the sock's behalf, or playing D&D. That's not by any means apples and apples, those who are really into robotics are likely really into engineering, math, physics, etc - and as a result, probably feel somewhat superior to the masse

  • force: It sucks, it is a MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT, and I don't care who the effing director is, he sucks!
    When the first three came out, with the excellent set designs and special effects, they could get away with mediocre actors, but this "geriatrics R us" freak show, with the younger submediocre actors, is a total monstrosity --- Harrison Ford cannot do wiseass while his hand is shaking holding a raygun yet miraculously having perfect aim! GET IT?????
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:47PM (#51186579)

    It's heartwarming that geeks are finally considered human beings.

  • A study from Georgia Institute of Technology find that students from University of Georgia are just jealous of their rad robo-bro [gatech.edu] who is so cool he's not even stoked about being on the cover of Popular Mechanics. [twimg.com]

    come on, do those University of Georgia people even lift? ;P

  • It was found that those who scored highly on both scales were more likely to narcissists.

    Ahem, shouldn't that be "more likely to narciss"?

    </sarcastic_prick>

  • Every few months, we get another one of these sort of questionable "studies" like "Your cat really doesn't love you" or "Your dog is really dumber than a pile of doornails". Somebody gets a wild hair up their ass to prove their pet theory that supports their own petty biased world view, looking to knock down someone or something a peg.

    Psychological studies are the worst... they analyze a group of people and determine that they are somehow "defective" (in this case, narcissistic, by whatever measure they use

  • kernel of truth (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AngelFrog ( 1742434 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @03:40PM (#51186861)
    i can see a kernel of truth in this. Many geeks, nerds and other various "outside the norm" kids will get rejected as youngsters. They get attacked because they are different. Nothing new here. Now if you get rejected by the main stream, you will take refuge in your own world/subculture where you are accepted. You can be as much of a big shot in the puppetry world as you are not in the general population. What looks to an insider like confidence acquired from knowledge and experience might look like "damn that dude is full of him self and for what? cause he knows all the squadrons involved in the attack on the first death star? Get over your self nerd!" to an outsider. When you have been rejected most of your life and you finally have people that recognize your worth, it is normal to look at your self a little more and like your self a little more. Then again, there are self centered assholes in all walks of life, geeks included.
  • One should never trust a newspaper's coverage of science. Some journalists don't care about the quality of studies and will often erroneously or intentionally oversimplify (or misrepresent) the implications of a study to suit a narrative they're invested in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    There's an additional problem that comes as a consequence of this: wikipedia editors routinely categorise publications that align with their politics and ideology as reliable sources while discounting those who do not as

  • One on ONE you can... but if you know nothing about someone then you can't trust them to just fill this out accurately. People interpret questions differently than the author all the time. Then you have people that lie because they find a question aspirational or shameful. And then you have people not taking things seriously... And there are issues beyond that.

    But the point is that you MUST conduct psychological evaluations one on one. You can't just hand some forms out and understand what is going on in ev

  • All the wonders of the Universe, and this is what we are studying.
  • How can one not be a narcissist when surrounded by idiots?

    Just saying... not that I'm one. Unlike other people, I'm superior in my abilities to suppress narcissism.

  • Speculation is she will turn out to be a daughter of Luke Skywalker. Some suggest may be a grand daughter of Ben Kenobi. But given that Star Wars stretches the boundaries "age", you know Anakin would have been all of ten years old when he married Queen Amydala... Rey could even be a daughter of Kylo Ren.

    I am hoping they would do something really unexpected plot twist to make Rey an aunt of Luke Skywalker. Anakin's father has been left dangling. Shmi's ambiguous explanation has been assumed to suggest virg

    • Speculation is she will turn out to be a daughter of Luke Skywalker. Some suggest may be a grand daughter of Ben Kenobi. But given that Star Wars stretches the boundaries "age", you know Anakin would have been all of ten years old when he married Queen Amydala... Rey could even be a daughter of Kylo Ren.

      I bet she thinks she's so great. And she's not even a Star Wars fan!

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      But given that Star Wars stretches the boundaries "age", you know Anakin would have been all of ten years old when he married Queen Amydala

      Yikes, so Amydala is a pedo?

  • by schitso ( 2541028 ) on Saturday December 26, 2015 @06:40PM (#51187647)
    So, gamers?
  • Never bitten the head off of any animal.
  • ..that's why we need Wil's words from time to time: https://dontbeadickday.com/wil... [dontbeadickday.com]
  • by johncandale ( 1430587 ) on Sunday December 27, 2015 @12:48AM (#51188751)
    Note they didn't even say how much more, just that they were "more likely to be narcissist".

    Also note, from the paper "Separate from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), narcissism is a normal personality trait characterized by a grandiose sense of self as well as efforts to maintain that sense of self in the face of reality "

    ----- "narcissism is a normal personality trait ", -study

    That is the problem with psyche studies, loose inter-definable terms like narcissism. They didn't find people with a NPD (even if they did, that diagnosis tool is highly suspect). You could rename the study "people with higher self esteem go to geek events" if you just use a few different words with different connotation but same measurably.

    Another problem with psyche studies is they relay on self reported feelings, which are highly suspect (people don't say truth, they say what they think they should say or what they think of themselves)

    It's like when shyness is renamed "anxiety" so they can sale you pills.

    I could go on, one of their data points is "Real Life." Apparently DnD with friends is not real life. But is watching sports on TV real life?

    From Study "(the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis)."

    So the study found people do normal things to fill normal needs and the people that do them correlate with a sightly higher scale of something also normal (narcissism) within normal ranges that has a negative Connotation outside of psych research.

    Do you get my point yet about the problems with psych research?

  • Are likely to be social leaders, scientists, engineers, astronauts, science fiction writers and philosophers.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...