A total of 1,026 participants took part in online
surveys where we assessed:
(i) for each feeling, the intensity of four
hypothesized basic dimensions
(ii) subjectively experienced similarity of the 100
feelings, and
(iii) topography of bodily sensations associated with
each feeling.
So, first and foremost, this is a free-association study, with all the rigor of a Freudian interpretation for responses to a Rorschach test.
But beyond that, why would anyone hold the opinion that this is science? Online surveys for 1,000 people, to gather opinions on the best way to associate words in English? That’s what this research accomplished.
And lastly, let’s imagine the potential applications for these results. How will they guide us to better predictions in the future? If I look at the information collected here, can I draw more accurate conclusions about the world, and improve practical decisions, now that I’ve been informed by these results?
No. No I can’t. This is the kind of analysis that simply trusts the respondant to complete an online survey in good faith. You can’t run the world like that. You can’t drop ten cents on a 30 minute multiple choice questionaire, and use that as your foundation for new insights.
They basically asked people to generate a tackling dummy data set for them by completing a survey, so that they could run a sort algorithm on it, and apply a graph to an Excel spreadsheet of answer counts. Except they did it in an academic setting, so that some how validates these results with defacto authority? Not in my world.