Posted on 05/21/2017 6:05:22 AM PDT by rktman
According to a study released Thursday by neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart in association with the London Press Club, the highest functions of the human brain operate at a lower level in journalists than the average population. Her research titled “Study Into The Mental Resilience of Journalists,” blames journalists’ cognitive shortcomings on dehydration caused by excessive alcohol consumption along with poor diet, including higher levels of sugar and caffeine. Less than 5% of journalists drink enough — or any — water while 41% drank more than 18 alcoholic drinks per week.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
NON print version:
I recall news people portrayed as sots in the movies. I guess this study confirms those stereotypes.
When I was in college in the early seventies about half of the students were non-business or science majors. The vast majority of these degrees led to zero jobs. These people showed up to class stoned, when the even remembered to come. Some of the women I spoke to expected glamorous, high-paid jobs in journalism.
btt
I’ll be honest....I’m all broke up about it.
Plus a bunch of them are homosexuals.Hard for your brain to function properly when your body is exhausted from fighting various infections and diseases.
Also explains Chris “Tingles” Matthews.
Anecdotal descriptions are not in the least scientific, but they do make for a lot of good stories in the back room, like the anchor coming on air while intoxicated, or getting up and storming out because he (or she) needed some kind of a “fix”. These bad actors do little if anything for the overall reputation of “journalists”.
A much stronger case may be made for the deliberate miseducation of the graduates of most current “journalism” schools, which are drilled daily in the perverse notion that somebody, somewhere, is pulling strings to subvert the Republic, then assign the blame to exactly the wrong parties. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to paint things in the absolute most opposite contrast to reality.
Kinda off subject but not since I’m still talking about liberals: I’ve heard the same drunk stories about administration officials at a local Big Ten University. I guess it’s just an anecdotal rumor but I have always wondered how widespread alcohol problems are with liberals in these high paying positions.
To: SlyfoxBlackmail could certainly explain a lot!That's when "fake news" was invented. The lamestreamers are running with it as if their entire existence depends on it.It does.
What would their consumers say if it came to light that the reporters and editors were rewarded for their slavish lap-dog coverage with trips to Epstein's Island, or more local pizza and cocktail wiener parties?
40 posted on 5/20/2017, 9:10:15 AM by null and void ( The Flat Earth Society claims they have members all around the globe!)
This is one of the largest fallacies that is put about by those who push theories or narratives that are not consistent with the facts or common sense, which is an individual's theory of the world developed through experience and anecdote related by others. Common sense is frequently wrong. But it is 98.95% of the time right for every day usage [that is why the human race survives relying on common sense].
Here is the Rational Wiki explanation: "Anecdotal evidence (also proof by selected instances, or, more pejoratively, anecdata) is use of one or more anecdotes (specific instances of an event; stories) to either support or refute a claim. The use of anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion is like using the NBA all-star teams to estimate the average height of Americans. Whereas anecdotal evidence is sometimes the starting point of a proper scientific investigation, it is all too often the ending point and every point of a pseudoscientific investigation. In the world of pseudoscience, an anecdote is the equivalent of a peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent results."
Here is the underlying issue. An anecdote (let's assume it is a true anecdote) is a single point of data. As the description states, you cannot infer a statistical conclusion from an anecdote, a single data point.
But on the other hand, an anecdote, a single instance, can refute an theory stated to be universally valid, e.g. all object dropped accelerate at the rate g. Observation - a feather dropped does not accelerate at all. The theory is not universally valid. Any idiot can see that.
In the end, anecdotes are data. Like all data, they can be subjected to verification, and examined as to whether they fit the explanatory hypothesis offered under the theory that is under examination.
It's another example of the liberal orthodoxy at work. To push policies and narratives that defy common sense they must undermine common sense. To do that they attack your personal observations as anecdotal.
#DrunkDonLemon
And a “Scientific Study” was required to determine the obvious hummmmm....
Won’t see that plastered all over the newspapers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.