Muslims 19,7 times more sensitive than danes

Originally posted by Zamini
This is psychological mumbo jumbo. Bogus researches done by nationalist researchers under the guise of science. Thank you academic-mythbusters for the entertainment.

Prove it?

Really, this place is about denying ignorance.

I fail to see your point.

Question 1: I don't understand the comparison, Danes and muslims? Can't a Dane be muslim? Ridiculous really. Unless this has to do with a political agenda, then it becomes as clear as daylight to me! (Don't know about you).

Muslims is mentioned because this condition was far more prevalent in middle eastern/muslim nations.

Question 2: Did they check every Dane and every muslim? What about the aforementioned Danish muslims?

Neither polls nor scientific studies evaluate every single person in the target group the poll or study is about.

Question 3: How many of you who are posting in this thread have experience with Danish folk? I have some experience and honestly, on the ignorance scale, Danes are way higher up than the muslims I've talked to. Insanely higher. Danes are like effing zombies. Maybe I should do my own mythbuster-quality-research to see which population on the planet Earth is the most docile?

I have some experience but since I'm a swede I don't really need any experience seeing as our countries are so similar, compared to swedes muslims are 18 times as 'sensitive' instead of 19,7 compared to danes.

What has ignorance got to do with it?

And yes, scandinavians are incredibly docile.

Me, as a Romanian citisen I can say I do look with admiration to the Scandinavian civilisation. On the other side, the islamic culture is something I worry about - it is so different from what Europeans built across the centuries that a war of the worlds is not any longer a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN in Europe.I just hope that the West of Europe will make it in the next 50 years, rough times ahead for all of us. Maybe the Eastern Europe will save Europe once again?

reply to post by Nupster


Indeed. Because if they would care about having a correct scientific approach they would ask all or as many in their power as they could. But they won't, because the point of this research is to belittle muslims, while in reality, the danish population consist of zombies - of course they don't care and of course they are noted as the worlds most happy people - because they are so ignorant.

And indeed, experiments like these taken around the globe are at the very least slightly incorrect for this same reason; it is not science they are after it is MONEY/POWER.

How else do you explain nationalities compared to religious liking? Why didn't they pick Danes and Iraqis, and see who can take the most laughing at, while completely ignoring the reality Iraq has been put through? Psychology = sham science.

The experiment is bogus, in my opinion, but also outside of that.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

I have some experience but since I'm a swede I don't really need any experience seeing as our countries are so similar, compared to swedes muslims are 18 times as 'sensitive' instead of 19,7 compared to danes.

So what you are saying here is that there are no Swedish Muslims. Am I correct in this assertion? Sensation science, what the heck...

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by Nupster

 

Indeed. Because if they would care about having a correct scientific approach they would ask all or as many in their power as they could. But they won't, because the point of this research is to belittle muslims, while in reality, the danish population consist of zombies - of course they don't care and of course they are noted as the worlds most happy people - because they are so ignorant.

They don't have the resources nor the time to ask whole populations. Psychology is a "soft" science.
I'll agree that psychiatry is at the very least flawed, and at worst a pseudoscience.

So it's ok for you to belittle danish people(the whole population in fact) but a scientific study can't say anything about muslims that might be construed as racist?

It's no secret that southern europeans are considered more 'passionate'(for lack of a better term) than northern europeans. It's also no secret that scandinavians are considered cold.
We all recognise these characteristics and have no problem with it, it's based on reality, it's simply self-evident.

But when it comes to muslims.. or muslim countries, suddenly there's no way you could ascribe certain characteristics to their populations?

Why don't you go read the study, find a flaw and debunk it. Simply saying that this study is wrong just won't cut it I'm afraid. Of course, maybe you would have to learn danish and we already know you don't like danes.

This study has confirmed mine and many others experiences with middle eastern muslims whether they be good or bad.

So what you are saying here is that there are no Swedish Muslims. Am I correct in this assertion? Sensation science, what the heck...

No, I think you're trying hard to misinterpret me while trying to make a point, see I already explained why the title pits muslims "vs" danes. They were on opposite ends of the spectrum.
It would be easier than naming the thread: "Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians and Pakistanis 19,7 times more sensitive than danes according to new study"

Yes there are, about half a million.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

But when it comes to muslims.. or muslim countries

1- Organized religion is a sham. 2- Your argument is even funnier because "you" call the countries Muslim. What does that make Denmark then? (FYI: seperate culture from religion)

see I already explained why the title pits muslims "vs" danes. They were on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Three guesses as to why they are PUT on opposite ends of the spectrum? Do you think the "researchers" have been in these countries or do you figure the "research" is founded on assumptions rather than interactions/experience? Apart from that, have you seen how the "research" was done? (If you call a paper on quantum physics by an art student; science, I can see how you believe this bullcrap)

Another valuable question you could ask is: "Denmark?" - Why that question? Well here you go, from the same "research" (btw, again - did you even look at the "research"?)

The high degree of gelotophobia in the Orient can probably explain part of the cause for the moslems' aggressive reaction against satire directed against themselves and against what they represent (fx the Mohammed cartoons)

Lets not forget the next stab:

Was Mohammed gelotophobe?

It would be easier than naming the thread"Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians and Pakistanis 19,7 times more sensitive than danes according to new study"

You call that SCIENCE and you sleep comfortably at night?

Really;

I fail to see your point.

What has ignorance got to do with it?

Ignorance has everything to do with it because you don't seem to QUESTION the research. You 'just' believe it. That is IGNORANCE.

1- Organized religion is a sham. 2- Your argument is even funnier because "you" call the countries Muslim. What does that make Denmark then? (FYI: seperate culture from religion)

I'm very well aware that organized religion is a sham, what's your point?
The countries are considered to be muslim countries despite the existance of other religious minorities.
Denmark would be an atheist nation with a christian background and various religious minorities.

Three guesses as to why they are PUT on opposite ends of the spectrum? Do you think the "researchers" have been in these countries or do you figure the "research" is founded on assumptions rather than interactions/experience? Apart from that, have you seen how the "research" was done? (If you call a paper on quantum physics by an art student; science, I can see how you believe this bullcrap)

They were not PUT on opposite ends of the spectrum, are you saying they just chose the results?
The results of the research would dictate where they end up on the spectrum.

It wouldn't be called research or science if it was just founded on assumptions, what kind of inane question is that anyway?

uzh.academia.edu... ountries

You might wanna peer-review it since you seem to have all the answers and the expertise? Debunk it, since you obviously seem to know that it's outright lies and slander.
Have you met any muslims? Are you a muslim? That would certainly be ironic.

In this research, 1 to 5 points were to be given for these 9 questions:

1) When others laugh in my presence, I get suspicious.
2) I avoid exposing myself in the public, because I fear that people may see
my insecurity and will make fun of it.
3) When strangers laugh in my presence, I often think they laugh about me.
4) I control myself a lot not to create negative attention, avoiding to
appear ridiculous.
5) I think I appear ridiculous, unvoluntarily, with others.
6) Even if I often feel alone, I do not participate often in social
activities, in order to protect myself against taunting remarks.
7) When I have made an embarassing impression one place, then I henceforth
avoid this place.
8) It takes quite a while to get over it when someone has laughed at me.
9) When dancing, I feel clumsy, because I am convinced that those seeing me
think I am ridicilous.

Another valuable question you could ask is: "Denmark?" - Why that question? Well here you go, from the same "research" (btw, again - did you even look at the "research"?)

The high degree of gelotophobia in the Orient can probably explain part of the cause for the moslems' aggressive reaction against satire directed against themselves and against what they represent (fx the Mohammed cartoons)

What's flawed with that line of thinking? They're trying to kill people over a cartoon, that's incredibly sensitive.

Lets not forget the next stab:

Was Mohammed gelotophobe?

You call that SCIENCE and you sleep comfortably at night?

I sleep pretty good.
He probably was, people laughed at him in the beginning of his "career".

Because of this same reason, there are a number of verses in the koran and hadith where Mohammed forbids to laugh about him.

Wouldn't that sort of confirm his fear of getting laughed at?
I haven't read the Koran so I don't know if that statement is true, it would be appreciated if anyone wanna chime in and confirm or debunk it.

Really;

Ignorance has everything to do with it because you don't seem to QUESTION the research. You 'just' believe it. That is IGNORANCE.

I don't question it because it goes in line with my experiences with muslims. They're quick to anger, sensitive and will try to fight you for 'looking at them wrong'.

I knew muslims were sensitive before this research confirmed it.

"Let's deny ignorance here.."

Please.. what a cliché.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

You might wanna peer-review it

In this research, 1 to 5 points were to be given for these 9 questions:

Why don't we all make up 9 questions, ask them to a handful of people, then drag in entire nations, brand them a religion, compare them to another nation and call it scientific research. Woe be upon the person who claims this is dubious because we will ask them to PEER REVIEW our piece of bullcrap "research"

I don't question it because it goes in line with my experiences with muslims. They're quick to anger, sensitive and will try to fight you for 'looking at them wrong'.

I'm afraid you've got "hoodlums" and "muslims" mixed up, but that's okay, a tad bit paranoid - but at least we know that now. Somehow I don't think you understand what you're saying, maybe travel around some.

Why don't we all make up 9 questions, ask them to a handful of people, then drag in entire nations, brand them a religion, compare them to another nation and call it scientific research. Woe be upon the person who claims this is dubious because we will ask them to PEER REVIEW our piece of bullcrap "research"

You're welcome to try, and while you're at it be sure to have it published at a university and then have it peer-reviewed, good luck.
If you succeed I'll concede you're right.

In the US we would simply call those symtoms "social phobia", and prescribe xanax.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


The symptoms does seem to resemble those of social phobia.

A little additional information: germans, spaniards and brits scored between 11 and 13%.

Something else to think about: no one claimed that this is good or bad, my opinion is that moderation and balance is the best way. It might not be good at all at least in certain circumstances to not take offense, it could cause a lot of problems, you might get stepped on.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

You're welcome to try, and while you're at it be sure to have it published at a university and then have it peer-reviewed, good luck.
If you succeed I'll concede you're right.

It's not about being RIGHT. It's about being a political TOOL, which is what you are trying VERY hard to be.

Also, that piece was meant satyrical, to show you the ridiculousness of the situation. Obviously, it went over your teen head. Except for that, you are using the logical fallacy "argument from authority"..."published at a university"? So if a university would publish a research that says the sky is green you would be here claiming the sky is green? Or did you CHOOSE this report to suit your purpose?

Besides all that...pffff...logic and common sense, riddle me this:

What do you know about the political role of universities in Denmark?

Let me guess; NOTHING?

Done here, it's obvious you lack a broad perspective, the readers won't have a problem spotting that any longer. Enjoy life in ignorance.

The key word here is new.

Given recent world events, if I were Muslim I'd be pretty hypersensitive by now too.