er, am not denying or *Idefending* anything. I don't know and that's what I've been saying all along
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > I *don't* care and I don't have time to download and parse it right now. > I'm not denying or anything --- I am just not believing your description of > it, because that is *always* a mistake. It's just another journal article. > There are a lot of them out there. Some of them contradict one another. > Does this one specifically address the other one, or does it just sat that > when you are trying to correlate MRI readings to personality traits you > need to do the math *this* way not *that*? > > Because in that case we need to go see if that's the methodology they > used. Except it's not going to be me doing tonight. > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may >> matter. >> >> It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say >> it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending >> it without knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you >> Larry's twin. This is it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous >> just because you don't like people that disagree with you. >> >> >> > Assuming you looked and it mentions this article. More likely it's a >> > meta-analysis for methodology for whatever he was looking at when he >> wrote >> > it, which is not to say that the remarks in methodology may not apply to >> > the University research.... would have to compare the two and I probably >> > won't. >> > >> > To me it's another journal article. If you think they never contradict >> each >> > other, i dunno what to tell you. I am not sure, assuming he is even >> talking >> > about the article Larry posted, whether the thingies he says where >> counted >> > wrong were the bits I was asking Larry about, the leave one out analysis >> > times a thousand, which I think deals with scoring the MRIs, or whether >> > it's in the questionnaire. >> >> >> Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a >> journal article because it doesn't suit you? >> I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or >> understand has two. >> But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here >> it is and you're trying your darndest to deny it. >> >> >> > If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am >> doing >> > stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains >> it. >> > If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, whereas >> > you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. >> >> You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as >> you attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's >> fine. But you belittle me with how successful you were at make the >> fool of me. That's the only thing driving this discussion, your >> personal attacks. Realize that and you have no reason to hate me and >> we can talk like adults. Never happen. >> >> >> > And none of the above changes the basic inequalities >> > >> > journal article>blog post >> >> Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites >> Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites >> >> . >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347061 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
