Re: For fucks sake

[Larry Colen]

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 1:25 PM, John  wrote:
> 
> On 1/29/2021 15:22:44, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>> I feel satisfied (now)!
>> :-
>> Igor
>> PS. Incompetence and stupidity always frustrate me.
> 
> Lost of practice & hard study can help with that.

I have too much practice dealing with incompetence already.  And, yes, both 
mine and others.


--
Larry Colen
l...@red4est.com




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[John]

On 1/29/2021 15:22:44, Igor PDML-StR wrote:


I feel satisfied (now)!
:-


Igor

PS. Incompetence and stupidity always frustrate me.



Lost of practice & hard study can help with that.


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[Igor PDML-StR]

I feel satisfied (now)!
:-


Igor

PS. Incompetence and stupidity always frustrate me.




 ann sanfedele Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:40:41 -0800 wrote:

but how do you really feel ?? :-)

ann

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, Igor PDML-StR wrote:




This is a #@%^&*+ dumb article! :-)
(And full of bovine scatology.)


On a serious note, this is a questionable quality article relying on 
questionable (IMHO - incorrect!) research results (conclusions).


I have discussed this article yesterday and today with a friend who actually 
works in medical research. We guessed that most likely the journalist was 
given an assignment to write something by the deadline (possibly on the 
subject), so she googled something and came up with some superficial 
conclusions, without much of critical thinking, and got paid for that 
mumbo-jumbo.


Besides having some wrong conclusions, what also adds to that impression is 
that the journalist does not seem to demonstrate understanding of how 
scientific research (publications) works: One of the referenced papers is a 
manuscript at the stage when it was submitted for publication. I actually 
have doubts if the journalist has actually verified whether it was published 
in a peer-reviewed journal. (I checked, it was.) [*]



Now, about the underlying research:
At least the first research article quoted by the journalist is flawed.
(I am reluctant to analyze in detail all of them.) [**]

The biggest problem about it is non-representative choice of the study 
participants. They had three studies, but all of them used college students 
taking psychology courses:
"A total of 43 participants (30 women) were recruited from introductory 
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...> Their ages ranged 
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"A total of 49 participants (34 women) were recruited from introductory 
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...>. Their ages ranged 
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"Participants were 126 college students aged 18–38 years (86 women <...>) 
enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small liberal arts 
college."


That is a very narrow category of the study participants, with a higher than 
average educational/cultural/social/... level.
I am sure if they took people from other socio-demographic groups, especially 
from the lower social levels, they would've seen quite different results.



To summarize, the study reported is not necessarily representative for the 
entire society. And the authors fail to acknowledge that fact.

(If I were the referee, I would've pointed this out, and would not have
recommended this article for publication unless a clear explicit statement 
about that serious limitation is made. - I've done similar recommendations on 
multiple occasions - in my field.)



This is a good example of how a [wrong] message from unscrupulous scientists 
can be amplified by low-quality journalists. This type of situations 
undermine the role of science in our society (leading to a wide-spread 
skepticism toward the science in the society).


My apology for being a party pooper... :-)


=
[*]
Let me clarify this point for those who might not be familiar with how 
scientific publications work. The author(s) submits a manuscript to the 
editor for publication. The editor takes a look - to determine who would be 
good reviewers, and sends it to those for review.  Based on the reviewers' 
comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision: to publish, to 
reject, or to give an opportunity to make improvements, in which case, the 
article can go through an additional, similar, round of review.
I've refereed many manuscripts. A significant portion of those were not 
suitable for publication without significant revision. Some of the 
manuscripts should have never been published (and usually they weren't).


So, the bottom line is that a peer review is an important tool to weed out 
improper articles. So if an article hasn't passed it, - its results and 
conclusions might not be reliable.

However, it is important to recognize that the peer-review is not a
guarantee. Moreover, there are peer-reviewed publications that are wrong. 
Some of those should not have passed through the peer-review, others were 
found to be wrong by the subsequent studies stimulated by them. The latter is 
a normal scientific discovery process.)


[**] I am not claiming all conclusions are wrong, - but even some of them 
being wrong make the entire article wrong.



Cheers,

Igor



ann sanfedele Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:41:36 -0800 wrote:

great article - works for me regularly

ann


On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:


https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html


   It definitely makes me feel better

   bill





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[ann sanfedele]

but how do you really feel ?? :-)

ann

On 1/28/2021 3:29 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:



This is a #@%^&*+ dumb article! :-)
(And full of bovine scatology.)


On a serious note, this is a questionable quality article relying on 
questionable (IMHO - incorrect!) research results (conclusions).


I have discussed this article yesterday and today with a friend who 
actually works in medical research. We guessed that most likely the 
journalist was given an assignment to write something by the deadline 
(possibly on the subject), so she googled something and came up with 
some superficial conclusions, without much of critical thinking, and 
got paid for that mumbo-jumbo.


Besides having some wrong conclusions, what also adds to that 
impression is that the journalist does not seem to demonstrate 
understanding of how scientific research (publications) works: One of 
the referenced papers is a manuscript at the stage when it was 
submitted for publication. I actually have doubts if the journalist 
has actually verified whether it was published in a peer-reviewed 
journal. (I checked, it was.) [*]



Now, about the underlying research:
At least the first research article quoted by the journalist is flawed.
(I am reluctant to analyze in detail all of them.) [**]

The biggest problem about it is non-representative choice of the study 
participants. They had three studies, but all of them used college 
students taking psychology courses:
"A total of 43 participants (30 women) were recruited from 
introductory psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...> 
Their ages ranged from 18 to 22 years ..."
"A total of 49 participants (34 women) were recruited from 
introductory psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...>. 
Their ages ranged from 18 to 22 years ..."
"Participants were 126 college students aged 18–38 years (86 women 
<...>) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small 
liberal arts college."


That is a very narrow category of the study participants, with a 
higher than average educational/cultural/social/... level.
I am sure if they took people from other socio-demographic groups, 
especially from the lower social levels, they would've seen quite 
different results.



To summarize, the study reported is not necessarily representative for 
the entire society. And the authors fail to acknowledge that fact.

(If I were the referee, I would've pointed this out, and would not have
recommended this article for publication unless a clear explicit 
statement about that serious limitation is made. - I've done similar 
recommendations on multiple occasions - in my field.)



This is a good example of how a [wrong] message from unscrupulous 
scientists can be amplified by low-quality journalists. This type of 
situations undermine the role of science in our society (leading to a 
wide-spread skepticism toward the science in the society).


My apology for being a party pooper... :-)


=
[*]
Let me clarify this point for those who might not be familiar with how 
scientific publications work. The author(s) submits a manuscript to 
the editor for publication. The editor takes a look - to determine who 
would be good reviewers, and sends it to those for review.  Based on 
the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes a 
decision: to publish, to reject, or to give an opportunity to make 
improvements, in which case, the article can go through an additional, 
similar, round of review.
I've refereed many manuscripts. A significant portion of those were 
not suitable for publication without significant revision. Some of the 
manuscripts should have never been published (and usually they weren't).


So, the bottom line is that a peer review is an important tool to weed 
out improper articles. So if an article hasn't passed it, - its 
results and conclusions might not be reliable.

However, it is important to recognize that the peer-review is not a
guarantee. Moreover, there are peer-reviewed publications that are 
wrong. Some of those should not have passed through the peer-review, 
others were found to be wrong by the subsequent studies stimulated by 
them. The latter is a normal scientific discovery process.)


[**] I am not claiming all conclusions are wrong, - but even some of 
them being wrong make the entire article wrong.



Cheers,

Igor



ann sanfedele Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:41:36 -0800 wrote:

great article - works for me regularly

ann


On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:


https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html 




    It definitely makes me feel better

    bill





--
ann sanfedele photography
https://annsan.smugmug.com
https://www.cafepress.com/+ann-sanfedele+gifts
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/annsan
https://www.createphotocalendars.com/Shop/annsanfedelecalendarsandbooks


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please 

Re: For fucks sake

[Igor PDML-StR]

This is a #@%^&*+ dumb article! :-)
(And full of bovine scatology.)


On a serious note, this is a questionable quality article relying on 
questionable (IMHO - incorrect!) research results (conclusions).


I have discussed this article yesterday and today with a friend who 
actually works in medical research. We guessed that most likely the 
journalist was given an assignment to write something by the deadline 
(possibly on the subject), so she googled something and came up with some 
superficial conclusions, without much of critical thinking, and got paid 
for that mumbo-jumbo.


Besides having some wrong conclusions, what also adds to that impression 
is that the journalist does not seem to demonstrate understanding of how 
scientific research (publications) works: One of the referenced papers is a 
manuscript at the stage when it was submitted for publication. I actually 
have doubts if the journalist has actually verified whether it was 
published in a peer-reviewed journal. (I checked, it was.) [*]



Now, about the underlying research:
At least the first research article quoted by the journalist is flawed.
(I am reluctant to analyze in detail all of them.) [**]

The biggest problem about it is non-representative choice of the study 
participants. They had three studies, but all of them used college 
students taking psychology courses:
"A total of 43 participants (30 women) were recruited from introductory 
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...> Their ages ranged 
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"A total of 49 participants (34 women) were recruited from introductory 
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...>. Their ages 
ranged from 18 to 22 years ..."
"Participants were 126 college students aged 18–38 years (86 women <...>) 
enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small liberal arts college."


That is a very narrow category of the study participants, with a higher 
than average educational/cultural/social/... level.
I am sure if they took people from other socio-demographic groups, 
especially from the lower social levels, they would've seen quite 
different results.



To summarize, the study reported is not necessarily representative for the 
entire society. And the authors fail to acknowledge that fact.

(If I were the referee, I would've pointed this out, and would not have
recommended this article for publication unless a clear explicit statement 
about that serious limitation is made. - I've done similar recommendations 
on multiple occasions - in my field.)



This is a good example of how a [wrong] message from unscrupulous 
scientists can be amplified by low-quality journalists. This type of 
situations undermine the role of science in our society (leading to a 
wide-spread skepticism toward the science in the society).


My apology for being a party pooper... :-)


=
[*]
Let me clarify this point for those who might not be familiar with 
how scientific publications work. The author(s) submits a manuscript to 
the editor for publication. The editor takes a look - to determine who 
would be good reviewers, and sends it to those for review.  Based on 
the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision: 
to publish, to reject, or to give an opportunity to make improvements, in 
which case, the article can go through an additional, similar, round of 
review.
I've refereed many manuscripts. A significant portion of those were not 
suitable for publication without significant revision. Some of the 
manuscripts should have never been published (and usually they weren't).


So, the bottom line is that a peer review is an important tool to weed out 
improper articles. So if an article hasn't passed it, - its results and 
conclusions might not be reliable.

However, it is important to recognize that the peer-review is not a
guarantee. Moreover, there are peer-reviewed publications that are 
wrong. Some of those should not have passed through the peer-review, 
others were found to be wrong by the subsequent studies stimulated by 
them. The latter is a normal scientific discovery process.)


[**] I am not claiming all conclusions are wrong, - but even some of them 
being wrong make the entire article wrong.



Cheers,

Igor



ann sanfedele Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:41:36 -0800 wrote:

great article - works for me regularly

ann


On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:


https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html


It definitely makes me feel better

bill



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[ann sanfedele]

great article - works for me regularly

ann

On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html 



It definitely makes me feel better

bill



--
ann sanfedele photography
https://annsan.smugmug.com
https://www.cafepress.com/+ann-sanfedele+gifts
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/annsan
https://www.createphotocalendars.com/Shop/annsanfedelecalendarsandbooks


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[Alan C]

When I was at Uni, I has a Greek pal who always said: "For the Sakes 
F*ck". Then he relaxed!


Alan C

On 27-Jan-21 05:46 PM, Bob Pdml wrote:

On 27 Jan 2021, at 15:04, Bill  wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html

It definitely makes me feel better

bill


But probably not as much as throwing your actual shit around would...



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[Bob Pdml]

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 15:04, Bill  wrote:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html
> 
> It definitely makes me feel better
> 
> bill
> 

But probably not as much as throwing your actual shit around would...
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: For fucks sake

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances,
profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
Mark Twain

Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
*



On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:04 AM Bill  wrote:

> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html
>
> It definitely makes me feel better
>
> bill
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.