Chick Flicks rot your brain

WendyNYC said:

Hey now. I liked that movie. And I'm still waiting for the Prime Minister to come and sweep me off my feet. Although I did hope for someone better looking than Gordon Brown.

Click to expand...

Laugh. I did like the scene where the guy kept having to sing the new version of his old song. I couldn't watch much more after that. Seriously. Really. I didn't watch it all. Okay then.

maestrowork said:

For once, I agree with her.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Just.

Wow.



Whatever happened to us, Ray. We used to have something special.

maestrowork said:

I personally don't know anyone who takes rom-coms as the gospel of romance.

I think in general people know the line between fantasy and real life. They don't really think elves and Middle Earth exist.

Click to expand...

Okay, now you've pissed me off...

Shadow_Ferret said:

I often wonder, when I read studies like these, if the people who conducted it just didn't have an ax to grind.

I mean, if you're a well-rounded, stable person it shouldn't matter WHAT you watch, Rom-Coms, horror, porn, whatever, it won't have any effect upon your psyche or world view.

However, if you already have "issues" then the fact that you watch Rom-Coms might be an extension of those problems and not the cause.

Click to expand...

I guess I've had a wee bit too much training in the scientific method (including courses on how to write tests that actually test what you're trying to test, and on how to conduct psychological research) to take any report of a study at face value. Some questions to ask about any study you read about in the paper:

1) Who actually paid to have the study done? Did they, in fact, have an axe to grind? Because there are plenty of examples, especially in the field of food products and medicine, where this is true. Studies of the harmful effects of artificial sweeteners, for example, have often been funded by the sugar industry.

2) How big was the study, and has it been repeated more than once? A study done with ten subjects is much less useful than a study done with ten thousand, and a study that can't be replicated by other researchers using the same method is probably inherently flawed.

3) What did the researchers use for control groups? In this case, did they have a control group of women with similar backgrounds (age, socio-economic status, education) who didn't see the movies to compare to? Did they have a group of men who saw these flicks as part of the study, as well as a group of men who didn't see them?

4) Did they measure before and after attitudes, or just after? Because one of the big mistakes the media makes is that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. That's the kind of thinking that says diet soda makes you fat because only fat people drink diet soda. But what if the causation is the other way around? In this study, that would mean that watching rom-coms doesn't give you unrealistic expectations for relationships, but that you watch them because you already had those unrealistic expectations.

5) Did the journalist accurately report what the researchers actually concluded? Journalists are infamous for taking facts that they're not competent to interpret, and interpreting them in any way that would make the best headline. That's why, if you're intending to change your life because of something a study said, you ought to at least read the original study in its entirety, and read the conclusions the researchers actually came to, rather than the one the journalist reported.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Ray! Scarlet's being mean to me again!

Click to expand...

But she's right...

And that was a thread I started!

Hey! No fair quoting me from other threads!

All's fair in love and war, and rom-coms usually have both...

So what are we at? Love or war?

I say we fight a lot and then make up.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Whatever happened to us, Ray. We used to have something special.

Click to expand...

You don't look or shape like Elizabeth Banks. Need I say more? It's over, dude. Give me my mood ring back.

Shadow_Ferret said:

So what are we at? Love or war?

Click to expand...

I think you've stalled at the "make" part.

scarletpeaches said:

I say we fight a lot and then make up.

Click to expand...

Anyone else I'd just blindly stumble in and go, "Oh, yeah!" but in your case, I'll say, "Who are you talking to?"

maestrowork said:

You don't look or shape like Elizabeth Banks. Need I say more? It's over, dude. Give me my mood ring back.

Click to expand...

Ray doesn't love me any more.

Let's not forget sitcoms (such as Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Family Matters, Yes Dear, Two and Half Men, etc.) that all portray men as some bumbling idiots who are afraid of standing up to their wives and who are constantly screwing up and seeking their approval.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Click to expand...

I rest my case.

James81 said:

Let's not forget sitcoms (such as Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Family Matters, Yes Dear, Two and Half Men, etc.) that all portray men as some bumbling idiots who are afraid of standing up to their wives and who are constantly screwing up and seeking their approval.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

James81 said:

Let's not forget sitcoms (such as Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Family Matters, Yes Dear, Two and Half Men, etc.) that all portray men as some bumbling idiots who are afraid of standing up to their wives and who are constantly screwing up and seeking their approval.

Click to expand...

Wrong thread.

maestrowork said:

Wrong thread.

Click to expand...

Well then, how about this funny little comic (since I've already went off base here):

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4066/friendsiw0.png

Yeshanu said:

But do they study men who expect women to care for the children, do all the housework, balance the budget on too little income, then greet them at the door in cling wrap, panting for sex? Of course not!

They blame the lack of sex on the women's unrealistic expectations, and expect them to give up the only real escape from drudgery that they have!

Grrr.

Click to expand...

Bitter, party of 1?

Bravo said:

okay all kidding aside, let's get into a real discussion about this:

*snip*

i havent read the actual study yet, but this is from the article:

Click to expand...

Bravo, for a serious discussion, go back and read my post about the scientific method. Then find and read the study (and link to it, too) if you want a serious discussion about it.

My gut feeling about this is that either the researchers or the journalist have fallen into the "correlation equals causation" trap, or that the study is flawed by not having a proper control group, or even that the whole method is flawed.

Why do I think that? Because this article doesn't tell us whether a) attitudes were measured before and after watching the films, or b) whether attitudes were lasting over time or specific to a time frame immediately following the film, or c) who, if anyone, comprise the control group.

More likely than who to believe in fate and destiny? A "stronger belief in predestined love" than who? Themselves, three hours earlier? A carefully matched control group? A bunch of forty-eight-year-old cynics who have been through three divorces and a funeral?

Students watching the romantic film were later found to be more likely to believe in fate and destiny. A further study found that fans of romantic comedies had a stronger belief in predestined love.

Click to expand...

Also note that the subjects of the study, as are the subjects of far too many psychological studies, were students.

Would you say that a psychological study done on an eighteen-year-old freshman in any way represents how you see the world?

That's why I don't believe that we should discuss or take this study terribly seriously. It's simply not good science, at least as it's been reported.