Holding a Gun Makes You Think Others Are Too, New Research Shows

[Unkotare]

Guns are for scared people

Next time you see a police officer you go tell him or her that, hero.

 

[California Girl]

Thank you. You are correct. But you don't hate Catholics.

I posted it because it was interesting. I posted this because it was cute. Nothing monumental, just thread topics.

Interesting? No. If you wanted 'interesting' studies about the impact of carrying a gun, you would have found a much more relevant study. There are a few around. I suspect you didn't read it properly and didn't realize how ridiculously small the sample was. And now, you are trying to back track it.

I'm not backtracking anything.

I wasn't looking for gun studies. Someone tweeted the link, and I thought it was interesting.

Ratchet down the desperation, wouldja?

Depends very much on your definition of 'interesting'. Personally, a study of 5 people doesn't hold any interest for me.

 

[Crackerjack]

Guns are for scared people

I hope it's painful to be as stupid as you. I really do.

 

[Synthaholic]

Interesting? No. If you wanted 'interesting' studies about the impact of carrying a gun, you would have found a much more relevant study. There are a few around. I suspect you didn't read it properly and didn't realize how ridiculously small the sample was. And now, you are trying to back track it.

I'm not backtracking anything.

I wasn't looking for gun studies. Someone tweeted the link, and I thought it was interesting.

Ratchet down the desperation, wouldja?

Depends very much on your definition of 'interesting'. Personally, a study of 5 people doesn't hold any interest for me.

Well, that's fine, sweetie. It wasn't posted to entertain you.

 

[Crackerjack]

I don't really see the point of this study as far as politics and law are concerned.

If the assumption is that people holding firearms are more likely to believe others have firearms, and are therefore more likely to engage in a gun battle, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All else being equal, I'd much rather shoot at someone who isn't going to return fire.

What does politics or the law have to do with it?

This was on a scientific website.

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't really see the point of this study as far as politics and law are concerned.

If the assumption is that people holding firearms are more likely to believe others have firearms, and are therefore more likely to engage in a gun battle, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All else being equal, I'd much rather shoot at someone who isn't going to return fire.

What does politics or the law have to do with it?

This was on a scientific website.

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

 

[westwall]

Well, I didn't check the number of subjects in that study. However, we have a little study going on right here on this message board. Look at the number of posts from wigged out 'Conservatives' about how they are going to enjoy blowing away all the libs when the libs come for them with guns. Obviously, they are seeing their own reflection, as most libs don't own the arsenals that they do. And have no intention of going after the 'Conservatives' in any situation.

The number of subjects in the study is prominantly mentioned in the link. Were you truly interested in science (and the proper usage thereof) you would have seen that and had a similar response to it as my wife did. She's a very big lib, but even she has problems with bad science!

 

[Papageorgio]

Holding a Gun Makes You Think Others Are Too, New Research Shows

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2012) — Wielding a gun increases a person's bias to see guns in the hands of others, new research from the University of Notre Dame shows.

Notre Dame Associate Professor of Psychology James Brockmole, who specializes in human cognition and how the visual world guides behavior, together with a colleague from Purdue University, conducted the study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

In five experiments, subjects were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment -- such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they perceived the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation the observers found themselves in, the study showed that responding with a gun biased observers to report "gun present" more than did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

"Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer's ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns," Brockmole says. "Now we know that a person's ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act."

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that simply letting observers see a nearby gun did not influence their behavior; holding and using the gun was important.


More at the link.

Is this some of the brainwashing that Eric Holder is wanting out there to turn people off of guns? I wonder who funded the study and I also wonder what the agenda of those doing the research were hoping to find. I bet it would be very similar.

 

[Synthaholic]

Holding a Gun Makes You Think Others Are Too, New Research Shows

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2012) — Wielding a gun increases a person's bias to see guns in the hands of others, new research from the University of Notre Dame shows.

Notre Dame Associate Professor of Psychology James Brockmole, who specializes in human cognition and how the visual world guides behavior, together with a colleague from Purdue University, conducted the study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

In five experiments, subjects were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment -- such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they perceived the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation the observers found themselves in, the study showed that responding with a gun biased observers to report "gun present" more than did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

"Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer's ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns," Brockmole says. "Now we know that a person's ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act."

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that simply letting observers see a nearby gun did not influence their behavior; holding and using the gun was important.


More at the link.

Is this some of the brainwashing that Eric Holder is wanting out there to turn people off of guns? I wonder who funded the study and I also wonder what the agenda of those doing the research were hoping to find. I bet it would be very similar.

YES! Eric Holder is the power behind the throne at Notre Dame!

 

[Crackerjack]

What does politics or the law have to do with it?

This was on a scientific website.

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

Okay, well as one who might be considered a gun nut (and holder of a CHL), I don't really agree with the study. However, it seems like they were testing a subconscious reaction, so obviously I can't really speak to that. Frankly I'm more worried that people think I'm carrying a firearm than the other way around.

 

[Papageorgio]

Holding a Gun Makes You Think Others Are Too, New Research Shows

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2012) — Wielding a gun increases a person's bias to see guns in the hands of others, new research from the University of Notre Dame shows.

Notre Dame Associate Professor of Psychology James Brockmole, who specializes in human cognition and how the visual world guides behavior, together with a colleague from Purdue University, conducted the study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

In five experiments, subjects were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment -- such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they perceived the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation the observers found themselves in, the study showed that responding with a gun biased observers to report "gun present" more than did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

"Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer's ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns," Brockmole says. "Now we know that a person's ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act."

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that simply letting observers see a nearby gun did not influence their behavior; holding and using the gun was important.


More at the link.

Is this some of the brainwashing that Eric Holder is wanting out there to turn people off of guns? I wonder who funded the study and I also wonder what the agenda of those doing the research were hoping to find. I bet it would be very similar.

YES! Eric Holder is the power behind the throne at Notre Dame!

What was the preconceived ideas that started the study? Who funded the study? Did the preconceived ideas become the reality of the study?

 

[California Girl]

Well, I didn't check the number of subjects in that study. However, we have a little study going on right here on this message board. Look at the number of posts from wigged out 'Conservatives' about how they are going to enjoy blowing away all the libs when the libs come for them with guns. Obviously, they are seeing their own reflection, as most libs don't own the arsenals that they do. And have no intention of going after the 'Conservatives' in any situation.

The number of subjects in the study is prominantly mentioned in the link. Were you truly interested in science (and the proper usage thereof) you would have seen that and had a similar response to it as my wife did. She's a very big lib, but even she has problems with bad science!

Having researched the research, what I do find interesting is the actual topic of the study... eye and cognitive reactions.

ND do have some really interesting research areas.

 

[uscitizen]

The dirty little secret is that "researchers" are usually grad students who work for a professor and professors usually lean way to the left. You can count on the students to "find" data that tends to get them a good grade and praise from the professor. If the "study" is part of a grant you can bet your ass that the study will find whatever it is that the grant specifies.

No secondary education huh?

I took 22 months of technical training after HS and some continuing ed classes at the university.
You should get a degree, you could get a higher paying job in the retail industry.

 

[Synthaholic]

Is this some of the brainwashing that Eric Holder is wanting out there to turn people off of guns? I wonder who funded the study and I also wonder what the agenda of those doing the research were hoping to find. I bet it would be very similar.

YES! Eric Holder is the power behind the throne at Notre Dame!

What was the preconceived ideas that started the study? Who funded the study? Did the preconceived ideas become the reality of the study?

Send an email to Notre Dame.

 

[daveman]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

It's incredible, isn't it?

It's a psychological study, that doesn't mention gun control, or Democrats. But this stupid shit only sees things through his anti-Democrat, 'Anybody But Obama' wingnut glasses.

His emotional bitterness would be funny if he wasn't so pathetic.

And yet he claims to NOT be a partisan hack

See my post about drooling idiot leftists. And add your name to it.

 

[daveman]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Why do you hate Catholics?

Why are you such an emotional little girl?

Oh, yeah -- you're a leftist.

 

[daveman]

Yes - the Catholic Notre Dame University is a Democratic Party front group.

My god, you are one stupid motherfucker.

No, you ignorant asshead, I was describing your motivation for posting the ridiculous study.

I like science? Ok.

Then you admit the study you linked is bad science.

Oh, wait -- no, you don't.

 

[daveman]

It's incredible, isn't it?

It's a psychological study, that doesn't mention gun control, or Democrats. But this stupid shit only sees things through his anti-Democrat, 'Anybody But Obama' wingnut glasses.

His emotional bitterness would be funny if he wasn't so pathetic.

And yet he claims to NOT be a partisan hack

He's claimed a lot of shit over the years. I point. I laugh.

Mostly, you whine.

 

[daveman]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

It's not good science that uses a sample size of 5 to represent as many as 150 million people.

 

[daveman]

Guns are for scared people

People with guns don't need to be scared.

Potential victims like you do.