seen from Malaysia
seen from Kosovo
seen from Brazil
seen from Israel
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Bahrain
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Finland
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
Inconsistent with a general self-enhancement effect, results showed that self-report means generally did not differ from informant-report means (average δ = −.038).
Hyunji Kim, Stefano I. Di Domenico, Brian S. Connelly. Self–Other Agreement in Personality Reports: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Self- and Informant-Report Means. Psychological Science, 2018; 095679761881000 DOI: 10.1177/0956797618810000
Self-report questionnaires are the most commonly used personality assessment despite longstanding concerns that self-report responses may be distorted by self-protecting motives and response biases. In a large-scale meta-analysis (N = 33,033; k = 152 samples), we compared the means of self- and informant reports of the same target’s Big Five personality traits to examine the discrepancies in two rating sources and whether people see themselves more positively than they are seen by others. Inconsistent with a general self-enhancement effect, results showed that self-report means generally did not differ from informant-report means (average δ = −.038). Moderate mean differences were found only when we compared self-reports with stranger reports, suggesting that people are critical of unacquainted targets. We discuss implications of these findings for personality assessment and other fields in which self-enhancement motives are relevant.
Hyunji Kim, Stefano I. Di Domenico, Brian S. Connelly. Self–Other Agreement in Personality Reports: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Self- and Informant-Report Means. Psychological Science, 2018; 095679761881000 DOI: 10.1177/0956797618810000
Is screen time actually screen time?
The actual research hasn’t come to one neat conclusion, and that may be because the field has relied on self-reports. It’s possible to measure how much time you spend on your phone; it’s just that most research — some 90 percent of it, estimates David Ellis, a lecturer in computational social science at Lancaster University — hasn’t. People are notoriously unreliable reporters of their own behavior: people misremember, forget, or fudge their responses to make themselves look better. We’ve seen it before with food diaries; we’re bad at remembering or even noticing how much we eat. Sometimes we lie to ourselves and, as a result, our food diaries, too. The unreliability of self-reports has been a major problem for nutrition research.
(...Then there are the ethical issues, Heathers points out. “There are a lot of problems and challenges for installing something on someone’s phone that, if it wasn’t for research, would essentially be considered spyware,” he says. “I don’t want to give you the impression that you can just merrily sail into it.” And even if researchers can access say, social media profile or smartphone data collected by a major tech company, should they use it? One effort to study “emotional contagion” kicked up an ethical kerfuffle when the researchers manipulated what 700,000 Facebook users saw, in part because it wasn’t clear that participants had truly provided informed consent. And earlier this year, voter-profiling firm Cambridge Analytica hit headlines when a whistleblower revealed that the company had collected data on 50 million Facebook users in order to target political ads to particular personalities.
(...)These kinds of studies that compare self-reports to other types of self-reports or to more objective measurements help ensure researchers are measuring what they think they’re measuring. And while the field sorts that out, the findings we’ve seen so far suggest that we need to be cautious about what we believe about the consequences of screen time. “Let’s imagine that there were a bunch of studies of how things interacted under a microscope, and you found out that there was a bunch of Vaseline on the lens,” Przybylski says. “Some of us know there’s Vaseline on the lens, and we’re desperately trying to clean the lens. And other people don’t give a crap.”
Starting to understand why Facebook is so reluctant to let Congress look under the hood of its ad business:
You might detect some dismay in this diary because, according to this EPA Progress Report "Many of the data come directly from the oil and gas industry and states with high levels of oil and gas activity." Mostly from only nine (9) companies. After all that has happened with "self-reporting" by industries, it's difficult to understand why the EPA would rely on the industry and states depending on a continual flow of these two cash crops for data.
Daily Kos: UPDATE 2: EPA's FRACKED UP REPORT - See Interactive Map to View EACH Fracking Well Info
Little Red Flags
When people announce that they are working on their issues, they are usually only at the naming stage.
When people self-identify, they sometimes tell you the truth. When people identify themselves as cheaters or liars, they probably are.
When people self-identify as not having friends (of the opposite sex), they probably really don't. For a reason.
And most little red flags...
...are really gigantic waving banners.
