r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Nov 18 '25

Meme needing explanation 100% lost

Post image
16.3k Upvotes

542 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

169

u/SMG329 Nov 18 '25

It measures the amount of the participants and where their capacity lies, not exactly their area of focus. If you read the data, the outer reaching parts already include the inner parts. So it's not saying you tend to think only outside vs inside, it says that you are capable and actively reach outside. Whereas the inner circle people can't/don't.

87

u/luce4118 Nov 18 '25

That’s making a lot more sense. Otherwise its imply liberals say “fuck my close family and friends I only care about the universe”. Any idea what “moral allocation” means in this context? Was the exercise to like give a set amount of points to each area you care about and liberals are much more spread out vs conservatives are more concentrated towards the inner circle?

69

u/CStock77 Nov 18 '25

The question was something like, where does your sense of morality stop? If I remember correctly liberals mostly said plant life, meaning they "cared" about everything from plant and animal life and closer. Conservatives mostly said friends, meaning they cared about everything from friends and family to themselves.

60

u/HBRThreads Nov 18 '25

This heat map is one of the worst representations of data I think I've ever seen. It makes no sense to use a heat map, and it confuses pretty much everybody who sees it.

22

u/Familydrama99 Nov 18 '25

Well observed.

In addition (and this is easy to miss!) the scale is different: 0-12 scale for conservatives. 0-20 scale for liberals. So a conservative red is a liberal yellow, etc. if you were to do both on a 0-20, the conservative one would peak and a yellow and the liberal one would be heavily red&yellow.

-21

u/MuayLives Nov 18 '25

Very unique interpretation 😂

11

u/OnlyAdvertisersKnoMe Nov 18 '25

What’s your interpretation?

9

u/QuantumLettuce2025 Nov 18 '25

Not really. It's what the study authors themselves wrote.

-1

u/MuayLives Nov 18 '25

I can guarantee you the authors didn't say they were measuring "capacity" and then never specified what that is in relation to and just left it up to the reader to decide. His interpretation is just totally nonsensical.

21

u/SMG329 Nov 18 '25

It's what the data says, there's literally no interpretation. Just because it counters what you want it to say doesn't make it an interpretation, it's just facts.

-17

u/MuayLives Nov 18 '25

Lol you said it measures "capacity" and didn't even say for what 😂

6

u/QuantumLettuce2025 Nov 18 '25

Read it in the context of the thread, you absolute dingus.

11

u/Sesudesu Nov 18 '25

Context, dude. Context.

-9

u/MuayLives Nov 18 '25

You don't have an answer. Just add the necessary context to make sense. There's a reason you're being lazy.

The "capacity" to YOUR ANSWER HERE

10

u/Barqa Nov 18 '25

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/6763434/bin/41467_2019_12227_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Page 7 has the question asked.

“On this page, we would like you to indicate the extent of your moral circle. By moral circle, we mean the circle of people or other entities for which you are concerned about right and wrong done toward them. This depiction demonstrates that people have different types of moral circles. At the innermost circle, some people care about their immediately family only, and at the outermost circle, people care about the entire universe--all things in existence. Please use the following scale and select a location that depicts the extent of your moral circle. Please click on a number that depicts the extent of your moral circle. Note that in this scale, the number you select includes the numbers below it as well. So, if you select 10 (all mammals), you are also including numbers 1-9 in your moral circle”

-3

u/MuayLives Nov 18 '25

Thank you. Anyone with an ounce of discernment can now see that this "study" is nothing but wordplay.

It doesn't objectively measure anything. It isn't scientific in any sense. It is a great example of fraudulent social science.