So, this is the power of science

I knew it!

>The research, entitled The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice, conducted three studies to test whether extended contact through reading the best-selling books "improves attitudes toward stigmatized groups (immigrants, homosexuals, refugees)".
>They found that identification with Harry Potter and disidentification from negative characters such as Voldemort and his Death Eaters "moderated the effect" of prejudice with young readers.
>Voldemort and his Death Eaters are also a pretty obvious parallel to Nazism.
>A single Jewish grandparent ‘polluted’ the blood, according to their propaganda.
>Coincidentally (perhaps), a 2016 study linked reading Harry Potter to a lower opinion of Donald Trump.
Title is wrong, unless they are implying no one who read the books wanted Voldemort to win.

Sample size too small.

>a lower opinion of Donald Trump
ffs

Harry Potter fans are all special snowflakes who obsessively try to justify their existence.

By the premise of the experiment it sounds like the researchers were heavily biased and hoping to find a positive correlation. This seems to be one the biggest flaws in social science research and it could help explain the awful replicability of psychology experiments.

t. someone who has no idea of how statistics and research works

How much you want to find a correlation has no impact on actually finding it.

>not rooting for the villain
absolute plebs

That only works in theory. Have you never seen cases of selecting data that fit the hypothesis and rejecting data that don't?

(NUMBER 4 WILL BLOW YOUR MIND)

>t. someone who has no idea of how statistics and research works

glad you admit you dont. Do you have any idea the amount of work that goes into not letting your opinion influence statistics? Even something as simple as them going 'I wonder if star wars or harry potter fans are more tolerant of minorities, lets test it, o turns out harry potter fans are!' already contaminated the results if they didnt account for the fact that they also had the idea about star wars.

That's a problem of data manipulation, not one because of a preformed opinion

Your understand of statistics is wrong, and your example makes no sense. If you want to test whether two populations differ, there are significance tests

This is how i say lefties claim their morals are scientific and objective and other people's is wrong while saying no moral is objective. Lol

What do you suppose the source of the replicability problem in social science research is then?

>your example makes no sense. If you want to test whether two populations differ, there are significance tests
you need to take into account that you are running the significance tests multiple times, something that has been proven over and over not to be done in social sciences. I hate to use xkcd, but maybe going down to this level is needed for you to understand.

Any time an article says "science proves" or "according to science" you can disregard it as pseudoscience.

Science can't "prove" anything. It can only disprove things. Psychology doesn't seem to understand this and always tries to prove a theory correct, rigging the experiment any way possible to verify their preconceptions.

It might come from data manipulation or from making a hypothesis AFTER looking at the data

You misunderstood that comic. The problem is not that the significance test was not run often enough, the problem is that if you make up random hypothesis and check them, and do this often enough, at some point you will get a significant result

are you just pretending to be retarded at this point?

>if you make up random hypothesis and check them, and do this often enough, at some point you will get a significant result
Thats exactly what I said they are doing. This is so common in academia that there even a term for it, 'p-hacking'
There are multiple ways to correct for this kind of testing, like Bonferroni correction or the Holm–Bonferroni method, but this is almost never used, especially in social sciences.

But you were talking about one or two very specific hypotheses, concerning the tolerance of star wars and harry potter fans, there's nothing to p-hack there

p-hacking is when you take an insanely large sample size

The most insufferable cunts I know besides sjw's are die hard fans of shit like Harry Potter and LoTr.

The Independent is a literal rag now

'Member when the scientific method was about disproving hypotheses, and not confirming biases?

>How much you want to find a correlation has no impact on actually finding it.

Why the fuck do they say "according to science"?

Hi, I am Science! The Independent asked me about this and I told them my view on the matter

>according to people familiar with the study
How do you do, sir?

So, why would I be a better human for being a fan of one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>might be anti-Christian
>magicians unironically celebrate Christmas
Fanfics are much better with their theories how christcuck Dumby destroys the magic world (fell for the religion that burned them, really?) and Voldy is saving it.

>Hypersphere in high tier

I came here to post this.

>Atlas shrugged is top tier
Atlas shrugged is about as masturbatory as red mars

I can't stand her writing, but the ideas are good.