I would like to make a comment about paragraph 18, the one that "quotes" researchers, with no notations as to source material. Firstly, just horrid writing skills, again with the 5th grade level writing.
Here we see a typical method of quote mining, one that I absolutely hate. No where in life would you get away with writing a paper on a subject, quote someone else's work, and then not cite your source. Except for WT writers. I remember way back when they listed the sources for their quotes on the back page of the magazines. Ya, not any more. The sheeple just lap this stuff up and never check any sources! Its almost comical.... any time I see this stuff, I pull out my phone and do a quick search!
Here is why they don't quote their source on this particular item. If you do a word search for the phrase in paragraph 18 that is "quoted" (people report a significant happiness boost after doing kind deeds for others), it brings up only 1 article on Altruism from a UC Berkley website, with that phrase intact. The reason, in my humble opinion, that they don't cite the source, is that the same article says a whole lot more. It discusses evolutionary processes that contribute towards this activity in the brain. It also discusses this as a positive effect on higher education, success in achieving financial benefits, and also a key to having good sexual relationships, and MORE SEX
.
There is a whole lot more, here is the direct link, so that you can see for yourself: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/altruism/definition#why-practice
The other 2 phrases "quoted" in the paragraph are from different sources, but all can be found in other Berkeley articles on psychology. Or maybe just freelance writers that have been published on UCB websites? Now, we couldn't have all you JW's reading about any of THAT stuff, so lets just take one tiny partial sentence out of context from several different source articles, and insert it into our study to "prove" our point. Its almost as bad as quoting their own literature to "prove" a point. Ridiculous and sad. I'm definitely NOT saying that the point they are trying to make is not genuine.... but why go to such lengths to "not disclose" the source materials?
Again, as someone else on this site mentions frequently, if you have to cheat to show that you are right, then maybe you are just a liar.
Furthermore, WHY do it in the first place? Just to make yourself look learned and scholarly, like your writing department knows more than everyone else? Anyone with half a brain can do a quick fact check! Classic example of treating their subjects like simpletons. Then again, if the shoe fits...…...