I've been stying out of this discussion mainly because I've been reading the article that Sam provided a link to. I'm still going through the article, but first and foremost it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Vui et al were looking at the unexpectedly high correlations between personality traits and vartious systems within the brain. Last I checked the psychological constructs known as personality traits are not political orientation. Even someone who has taken an intro to psychology course at the high school level should have picked up that one. Did ytou actually read the article Sam?
Second the main thrust of the criticism was how these personality traits were correlated with problematic measures of brain activation. The study I mentioned looked at the differences between specific groups. In other words a very different form of statistical analysis was used. This meta-analysis you cited does not address that. There are other criticisms I could make about the methodological approach the authors take. However everyone else would find it completely boring. I also think that this study is important for entirely different reasons than Sam gave and those reasons are not at all relevant to this discussion, mainly involving recent research in the neuophysiology of personality. In a nutshell Sam you need to actually read and attempt to understand the material you present in cases like these. That way you do not come across with so much egg on your face. On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Dana wrote: > > 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 <javascript:;>> > 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<javascript:;>> > 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:347118 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
