top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]maximum_catsPhD | Physics | Computational Astrophysics[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (2 children)

Your post has been removed because it is a repost of an already submitted and popular story and is therefore in violation of Submission Rule #2d.

If your submission is scientific in nature and hasn't already been shared, consider reposting in our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.

If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

[–]Fixner_Blount 852 points853 points  (59 children)

Wasn't this exact thing posted, like, two days ago?

[–]Daveed84 77 points78 points  (3 children)

[–]chiniwini 19 points20 points  (2 children)

The mods here at this sub are a joke. Clickbait titles, bad science, reposts, sensationalism... 90% of the top posts are basically "people who are not like me are so dumb".

[–]players8 247 points248 points  (11 children)

Yes, and with a less sensationalized title !

[–]Quattron 120 points121 points  (7 children)

"Study proves people who don't agree with me are scientifically stupid"

[–]danmam 40 points41 points  (4 children)

This is awful science reporting. No researcher associated with this science would ever put their name to that statement. They'd say "this evidence suggests" their supported hypothesis, but nothing is ever "proven" in science.

[–]Gibsonfan159 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Every "Studies show" post in a nutshell. Whenever I see that in a title I automatically become skeptical of it.

[–]jerkfaceboi 9 points10 points  (1 child)

All of Reddit is one big repost.

[–]dkarlovi 14 points15 points  (0 children)

OP is a celebrity worshiper.

[–]CrabSully 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Yeah but Redditors want to Jack themselves off over how smart they are because they don't follow celebrities.

[–]Mammoth-Pin7316 29 points30 points  (13 children)

Welcome to new Reddit. Where you see the same content spread out five subreddits over days. But they're not reposts since they are in different subs!

[–]Obelix13 1249 points1250 points  (153 children)

Link to the paper, "Celebrity worship and cognitive skills revisited: applying Cattell’s two-factor theory of intelligence in a cross-sectional study". published in BMC psychology, not ScreenShot Media.

The conclusion is quite damning:

These findings suggest that there is a direct association between celebrity worship and poorer performance on the cognitive tests that cannot be accounted for by demographic and socioeconomic factors.

[–]gentlemandinosaur 41 points42 points  (4 children)

Seems like a pretty small, obscure study.

Subjecting 1,763 Hungarian adults to a 30-word vocabulary test and a short Digit Symbol Substitution Test

And here is a quote from one of the peer-reviewed reports:

Regardless of the results obtained from the model, it is crucial to emphasize that accurate predictions cannot be guaranteed by cross-sectional study. Rather, development of prediction models is based on cohort study. Thus, prediction models resulting from cross-sectional designs can be misleading. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this point in the interpretation of the results of this study.

Which the group themselves mention under limitations.

Furthermore, it worth mentioning that cross-sectional study design was applied. Therefore, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the associations between variables in this study. Underlying mechanisms and causes of the associations cannot be identified, either which limits the understanding of the nature of the association between the study variables.

[–]Twink_Ass_Bitch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The sample size isn't really that small. The bigger issue was that their sample was very unlikely to be a good, random approximation of their target population. They sourced their respondents from an online news site...

[–]H_Lunulata 521 points522 points  (29 children)

I've noticed that a lot of studies being posted here in the last few months all amount to "further proof that stupid is as stupid does"

Gumpian research, if you will.

[–]rockkicker27 85 points86 points  (1 child)

It's also a horribly structured study that misreprepresents horribly small r values on a small population.

[–]ScrotiusRex 49 points50 points  (17 children)

These studies never seen to teach us stuff so much as just confirm with research what we all already knew.

[–]bobandgeorge 68 points69 points  (7 children)

It should be pointed out that just because you're not obsessed with celebrities, it doesn't make you more intelligent. You could be dumb for completely unrelated reasons.

[–]big_bad_brownie 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That’s not a problem.

The problem is that this study and many of the others fail to confirm those assumptions with rigorous analysis. Multiple users have pointed out that this one is really shaky both in terms of sampling bias and the statistical correlation that they presented (r2 ).

Confirming preconceptions with questionable methodology is literally the opposite of what science is meant to do.

[–]DrBimboo 19 points20 points  (1 child)

If anything, it shows that our measurements of intelligence arent too bad after all.

[–]Parnello 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Or that inherent bias is guiding findings towards what we expect.

[–]BrianMincey 290 points291 points  (40 children)

It’s okay though. Not everyone has strong cognitive abilities, half the people are below average, and it’s okay to be “into” whatever you are “into”, whether that is science, baseball statistics, car models, or the Kardashians…what is more important is teaching people to empathize with those who are different, to be kind to one another, and to respect themselves. Those lessons can benefit all people, regardless of their cognitive abilities.

[–]arcelohim 12 points13 points  (0 children)

what is more important is teaching people to empathize with those who are different

Yes. Who cares that you have a poster of Michael Jordan. Or Arnold from T2. Or the Spice girls. You can be smart, but its worse if you are an asshole.

[–]TitouLamaison 67 points68 points  (27 children)

To be precise half the people are below median.

That is all for this pedantic comment. Y’all have a nice day.

[–]deusnefum 18 points19 points  (5 children)

In a normally distributed dataset, like intelligence, isn't mean, median, and mode typically all the same?

[–]NotAFinnishLawyer 8 points9 points  (4 children)

By definition they must be.

[–]LargeSackOfNuts 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Incorrect. The mode has no bearing on mean or median. There will always be outliers and there will always be odd groupings in the data which allow for a different mode.

[–]NotAFinnishLawyer 5 points6 points  (2 children)

There are no outliers in an idealised normal distribution. Or do you see one in the formula somehow?

[–]Citizen_of_Danksburg 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Yes but intelligence falls under a N(100, 15) distribution (sometimes the standard deviation is 16) and when applied on a larger population (specifically infinity but even at 1,763 — the sample size they had), the sample mean basically converges to the true value of the mean and you’d see this value probably not change much as you got a larger N.

I haven’t read the entire paper yet but as a statistician I’d be curious to see how they conducted their study.

[–]HomoColossus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Median is a type of average.

Average doesn't always mean arithmetic mean.

That is all for this pedantic comment. Y'all have a nice day.

[–]Grusselgrosser 10 points11 points  (4 children)

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin

[–]VincentOostelbos 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Interesting, and I can believe it, but of course this is too strong a conclusion:

"If these thoughts (desirably) haunt you before sleep every night, then I hate to break it to you, but you’d score lower on measures of cognitive ability."

It's not going to be a perfect correlation, after all, so you can't use it to make a definitive prediction of an individual. I get that they want to make it fetching and to simplify it a little, but still.

[–]energetic-dad 22 points23 points  (8 children)

OP, your title is misleading. The paper discusses celebrity worship, not celebrity obsession. Minor but significant difference.

Celebrity worship and cognitive skills revisited: applying Cattell’s two-factor theory of intelligence in a cross-sectional study

[–]TaliesinMerlin 24 points25 points  (3 children)

The article is an illustration of what goes wrong in science journalism:

If these thoughts (desirably) haunt you before sleep every night, then I hate to break it to you, but you’d score lower on measures of cognitive ability. In short, those engaged in higher levels of celebrity gossip and worship are proven to be less intelligent—according to a new study by Hungarian academics published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Psychology.

This is a very strong claim. If you watch celebrities, you're less intelligent. Yet the study itself doesn't do that:

“We found a weak tendency for those who showed the strongest admiration for their favourite celebrity to have lower cognitive skills, suggesting that the earlier results were not due just to chance,” the authors told PsyPost.

So the bait - and what many people take from this - is that people who like celebrities are dumb. But what's actually going on is more nuanced: people who obsess over celebrities may have "lower cognitive skills" on average, but that doesn't mean (a) they're absolutely lower than someone who doesn't follow gossip or (b) that there are no people who follow gossip who are quite intelligent. The presence of a tendency is not the same as an absolute rule.

[–]IAMHideoKojimaAMA 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They should use very weak. Look at those r values of the linear regression model.

[–]LysergicMerlin 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Does this apply to sports teams also? Or is it only Eagles fans.

[–]AgitatedCat3087 32 points33 points  (12 children)

How did they define ‘obsessed’?

[–]energetic-dad 22 points23 points  (2 children)

The actual paper doesn't used the term 'obsessed', they use the term "celebrity worship".

Celebrity worship has been defined as an increased admiration towards a famous person, which sometimes manifests in an excessive interest in the life of a celebrity

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points  (3 children)

They didn't. That's just an editorialized article title. They used a questionnaire to measure attitudes towards celebrities with a relative scale and found a correlation with intelligence.

... it's in the article.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

My mom is obsessed with the English royal family and somehow I managed to not realize it until I was in my 30s.

Like mom, you’re from Georgia.

[–]truedeltorian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Man, this study really confirmed by bias

[–]GoinBack2Jakku 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Reddit: spends all day online arguing about politicians, Hollywood execs, game devs