so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry, the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems to think there might be a different problem. If I sank several days into the statistics I might be able to evaluate the statistics part, but you wouldn't believe me if I did, and I don't think I know enough neuropsych to even attempt that.
If these methodology problems were pointed out before the Rees study, then he, as a researcher in the field, could well have been aware of them. Maybe even have taken them into account in his study design. If he didn't, yeah, that might be a problem. But can you yourself tell whether he did or not? You're doing what you accuse him of doing, looking for support for a conclusion you have already drawn based on "common sense." This is why I dismiss your arguments most of the time, because they invariably emerge as a huge waste of time and bandwidth. You could, days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it doesn't make sense." You would not have convinced anyone, mind you, but you still haven't, and in the meantime you have impugned the integrity of the researchers in a multiplicity of ways. Maybe they are evil people indeed, but you have produced no proof of this beyond the fact that Firth, who did not carry out the actual testing, said something that offended you. I just don't understand the unceasing nastiness. You must be a very unhappy person to think like this. An analogy to your argument in this thread: Jimmy Carter has committed hate crimes because he comes from a southern state. Facepalm. OK now... as you were, just had to say. On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It was written before the Rees study, so no. > But it talks about the accuracy for those types of studies. Measuring > that part of the brain. > > "a disturbingly large, and quite prominent, segment of social > neuroscience research is > using seriously defective research methods and producing a profusion > of numbers that > should not be believed." > > So technically that Rees study could be perfect. > > . > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't actually think the Rees thing is that earth shaking. I mean my >> life certainly hasn't changed. >> >> I have not looked at the Vul article because I am doing stuff but are >> you actually saying that it critiques the Rees article in particular? >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347097 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
