The irrefutable proof you are looking for does not really exist, it's like we're standing in the middle of a forest and you look at a map and tell me that the correlation between a few trees and the green area on the map does not prove the existence of forests and blame me for being unable to provide chemical proof that the trees are indeed made out of wood in the first place.
I'm just saying that IMO you're just moving the goalposts around until it becomes impossible for me to prove this without joining the social sciences myself and conducting a myriad of studies. And even then you'd claim that I was biased the whole time anyway and wasted the last ten years of my life. I have just learned to see when an argument with you becomes pointless and I can go and find better ways to spend my time.
What you make of it or how many victories you claim is your problem as long as I don't have to chase and read studies for 50 hours only to have you proclaim that they don't convince you for some reason anyway.
Oh yeah, if you want me to show you the studies on the subject instead of newspapers citing them, here you go:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.1996.9714029
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...73039508720824
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....1975.11413782
http://www.jstor.org/stable/797509?s...n_tab_contents
Notice anything about your goalposts yet or do I need to go on?
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ort/63/4/536/
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1999-11644-001
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&...0study&f=false
http://esj.sagepub.com/content/1/1/83.short
There you have your primary sources, have fun reading them.![]()
Bookmarks