[tips] testing again--please ignore (and I apologize)

[Carol DeVolder]

Testing from another account, but hopefully I will get the old one fixed.
Sorry for all the e-mails.
Carol D.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7759
or send a blank email to 
leave-7759-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] yet another test--don't bother opening

[michael sylvester]

Carol: check for dead black birds in your internet space.
Michael (I could resist}
- Original Message - 
From: "DeVolder Carol L" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 


Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 12:07 AM
Subject: [tips] yet another test--don't bother opening


Couldn't resist, could you? :)
Still just testing though.





Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Chair, Department of Psychology
St. Ambrose University
518 West Locust Street
Davenport, Iowa 52803

Phone: 563-333-6482
e-mail: devoldercar...@sau.edu
web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm

The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with 
anyone without permission of the sender.



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: msylves...@copper.net.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587541&n=T&l=tips&o=7756
or send a blank email to 
leave-7756-13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587...@fsulist.frostburg.edu







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3365 - Release Date: 01/07/11 
05:34:00



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7758
or send a blank email to 
leave-7758-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] yet another test--don't bother opening

[Beth Benoit]

ha ha...of course not!

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM, DeVolder Carol L wrote:

> Couldn't resist, could you? :)
> Still just testing though.
>
>
>
>
>
> Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology
> Chair, Department of Psychology
> St. Ambrose University
> 518 West Locust Street
> Davenport, Iowa 52803
>
> Phone: 563-333-6482
> e-mail: devoldercar...@sau.edu
> web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm
>
> The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with
> anyone without permission of the sender.
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: beth.ben...@gmail.com.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aaf72&n=T&l=tips&o=7756
> or send a blank email to
> leave-7756-13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aa...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7757
or send a blank email to 
leave-7757-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] yet another test--don't bother opening

[DeVolder Carol L]

Couldn't resist, could you? :)
Still just testing though.





Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology
Chair, Department of Psychology 
St. Ambrose University 
518 West Locust Street 
Davenport, Iowa 52803 

Phone: 563-333-6482 
e-mail: devoldercar...@sau.edu 
web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm 

The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with anyone 
without permission of the sender.


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7756
or send a blank email to 
leave-7756-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<>

[tips] testing (please ignore unless you are B. Southerly)

[DeVolder Carol L]

I've not been getting TIPS messages for a few days and I'm trying to figure out 
why. I think it's because of some changes to our server so I'm seeing if this 
has any effect. Otherwise I believe I need to unsubscribe and resubscribe.






Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology
Chair, Department of Psychology 
St. Ambrose University 
518 West Locust Street 
Davenport, Iowa 52803 

Phone: 563-333-6482 
e-mail: devoldercar...@sau.edu 
web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm 

The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with anyone 
without permission of the sender.


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7754
or send a blank email to 
leave-7754-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Marc Carter]

I wish I had thought of that.  It seems shady and I'm not sure the journal of 
neuroscience would have bought the argument, but hey...

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:30 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics
> Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
>
> Hi
>
> But one-tailed is used generally (figuratively?) to refer to
> directional alternative hypotheses (e.g., u1 > u2), and the
> standard F test is non-directional (i.e., u1>u2 OR u2>u1),
> even though it only involves (literally) one-tail of the
> distribution.  Assuming only two groups or a single df
> contrast (e.g., linear), the directional F would have a p of
> .07/2 = .035.
>
> If you want to have some "fun" with students, try to explain
> to them why they need to look up the critical value of F for
> .10 to do a directional (i.e., figurative one-tail) test,
> although it does help for them to think of the t distribution
> folded over and that t**2 = F.
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>
> >>> Marc Carter  07-Jan-11 11:45 AM >>>
>
> Ever since one of my grad faculty asked me to do a one-tailed
> F-test, I hate one-tailed tests.
>
> I'm serious -- he really did.  The probability of getting the
> F we got was .07, and he said "Can't you do a one-tailed
> test?"  I explained -- calmly, I believe -- that F *is*
> effectively a one-tailed test...
>
> m
>
> --
> Marc Carter, PhD
> Associate Professor and Chair
> Department of Psychology
> College of Arts & Sciences
> Baker University
> --
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:27 AM
> > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> > Subject: RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues
> > Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I think of one-tailed (or Abelson's 1.5 tailed) tests as a kind of
> > quasi-bayesian adjustment to the standard non-directional
> test.  That
> > is, given empirical or theoretical grounds for expecting an
> outcome in
> > one direction, then one needs less evidence from the present study
> > before moving in that direction.  I also sometimes use a perceptual
> > metaphor ... primed to expect some stimulus (e.g., meeting
> someone in
> > a crowded room), one needs less perceptual input before identifying
> > the person.
> >
> > Also, it would appear that the same issues would arise with planned
> > versus post hoc comparisons.  That is, post hoc requires some
> > adjustment for multiple tests, whereas planned may not
> because of the
> > expectation of a predicted pattern.
> >
> > Take care
> > Jim
> >
> > James M. Clark
> > Professor of Psychology
> > 204-786-9757
> > 204-774-4134 Fax
> > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
> >
> > >>> "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin"  07-Jan-11
> 11:06 AM >>>
> > Robert Abelson, in his excellent book Statistics as Principled
> > Argument, advocates the use of what he calls a
> one-and-a-half tailed
> > test for directional predictions; for example, you could
> set the alpha
> > level at .04 in the tail of the predicted direction and .01 in the
> > unpredicted direction.
> > I always thought that was a neat idea, but I've never seen
> anyone use
> > it.
> >
> > 
> > From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca]
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:04 AM
> > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> > Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues
> > Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
> >
> > On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois pointing out
> > that Bem used one-tailed tests:
> >
> > > That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued
> that one-
> > > tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and
> > should be
> > > banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient
> justification.
> > > One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can
> > > plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in
> > the "wrong"
> > > tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would
> > either be
> > > meaningless or of no interest at all.
> >
> > I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do
> they not do
> > that any more?), in what appears to be a brand-new journal, has an
> > excellent opinion piece which fully supports my view above.
> How they
> > got it into print so quickly after reading my post, I'll never know.
> >
> > The paper is this:
> >
> > Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use one-tailed
> > hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 114-117.
> >
> > After giving a great example of the tangle

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Jim Clark]

Hi

But one-tailed is used generally (figuratively?) to refer to directional 
alternative hypotheses (e.g., u1 > u2), and the standard F test is 
non-directional (i.e., u1>u2 OR u2>u1), even though it only involves 
(literally) one-tail of the distribution.  Assuming only two groups or a single 
df contrast (e.g., linear), the directional F would have a p of .07/2 = .035.

If you want to have some "fun" with students, try to explain to them why they 
need to look up the critical value of F for .10 to do a directional (i.e., 
figurative one-tail) test, although it does help for them to think of the t 
distribution folded over and that t**2 = F.

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca

>>> Marc Carter  07-Jan-11 11:45 AM >>>

Ever since one of my grad faculty asked me to do a one-tailed F-test, I hate 
one-tailed tests.

I'm serious -- he really did.  The probability of getting the F we got was .07, 
and he said "Can't you do a one-tailed test?"  I explained -- calmly, I believe 
-- that F *is* effectively a one-tailed test...

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca] 
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:27 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics
> Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
>
> Hi
>
> I think of one-tailed (or Abelson's 1.5 tailed) tests as a
> kind of quasi-bayesian adjustment to the standard
> non-directional test.  That is, given empirical or
> theoretical grounds for expecting an outcome in one
> direction, then one needs less evidence from the present
> study before moving in that direction.  I also sometimes use
> a perceptual metaphor ... primed to expect some stimulus
> (e.g., meeting someone in a crowded room), one needs less
> perceptual input before identifying the person.
>
> Also, it would appear that the same issues would arise with
> planned versus post hoc comparisons.  That is, post hoc
> requires some adjustment for multiple tests, whereas planned
> may not because of the expectation of a predicted pattern.
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca 
>
> >>> "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin"  07-Jan-11 11:06 AM >>>
> Robert Abelson, in his excellent book Statistics as
> Principled Argument, advocates the use of what he calls a
> one-and-a-half tailed test for directional predictions; for
> example, you could set the alpha level at .04 in the tail of
> the predicted direction and .01 in the unpredicted direction.
> I always thought that was a neat idea, but I've never seen
> anyone use it.
>
> 
> From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca] 
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:04 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics
> Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
>
> On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois
> pointing out that Bem used one-tailed tests:
>
> > That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> > tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and
> should be
> > banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.
> > One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can
> > plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in
> the "wrong"
> > tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would
> either be
> > meaningless or of no interest at all.
>
> I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do
> they not do that any more?), in what appears to be a
> brand-new journal, has an excellent opinion piece which fully
> supports my view above. How they got it into print so quickly
> after reading my post, I'll never know.
>
> The paper is this:
>
> Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use
> one-tailed hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and
> Evolution, 1, 114-117.
>
> After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary
> researcher is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue,
> they say this:
>
> "On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no
> grounds for treating an experiment where the birds having a
> spectacular adverse reaction to the supplement any
> differently from the birds having no reaction. This
> philosophical lack of ability to act in response to
> unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing".
>
> Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!
>
> They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where
> we are comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,
>  "Use of one- tailed testing is more common than we would
> expect" [in ecology journals], They report that none of these
> uses involved a s

[tips] Is doctorate degree worthwhile?

[Gerald Peterson]

If you have any undergrads thinking about a doctorate, this piece might be food 
for thought.

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223


 
GPeterson
SVSU
Gary's iPad


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7751
or send a blank email to 
leave-7751-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Marc Carter]

Ever since one of my grad faculty asked me to do a one-tailed F-test, I hate 
one-tailed tests.

I'm serious -- he really did.  The probability of getting the F we got was .07, 
and he said "Can't you do a one-tailed test?"  I explained -- calmly, I believe 
-- that F *is* effectively a one-tailed test...

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:27 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics
> Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
>
> Hi
>
> I think of one-tailed (or Abelson's 1.5 tailed) tests as a
> kind of quasi-bayesian adjustment to the standard
> non-directional test.  That is, given empirical or
> theoretical grounds for expecting an outcome in one
> direction, then one needs less evidence from the present
> study before moving in that direction.  I also sometimes use
> a perceptual metaphor ... primed to expect some stimulus
> (e.g., meeting someone in a crowded room), one needs less
> perceptual input before identifying the person.
>
> Also, it would appear that the same issues would arise with
> planned versus post hoc comparisons.  That is, post hoc
> requires some adjustment for multiple tests, whereas planned
> may not because of the expectation of a predicted pattern.
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>
> >>> "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin"  07-Jan-11 11:06 AM >>>
> Robert Abelson, in his excellent book Statistics as
> Principled Argument, advocates the use of what he calls a
> one-and-a-half tailed test for directional predictions; for
> example, you could set the alpha level at .04 in the tail of
> the predicted direction and .01 in the unpredicted direction.
> I always thought that was a neat idea, but I've never seen
> anyone use it.
>
> 
> From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:04 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics
> Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall
>
> On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois
> pointing out that Bem used one-tailed tests:
>
> > That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> > tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and
> should be
> > banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.
> > One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can
> > plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in
> the "wrong"
> > tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would
> either be
> > meaningless or of no interest at all.
>
> I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do
> they not do that any more?), in what appears to be a
> brand-new journal, has an excellent opinion piece which fully
> supports my view above. How they got it into print so quickly
> after reading my post, I'll never know.
>
> The paper is this:
>
> Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use
> one-tailed hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and
> Evolution, 1, 114-117.
>
> After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary
> researcher is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue,
> they say this:
>
> "On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no
> grounds for treating an experiment where the birds having a
> spectacular adverse reaction to the supplement any
> differently from the birds having no reaction. This
> philosophical lack of ability to act in response to
> unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing".
>
> Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!
>
> They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where
> we are comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,
>  "Use of one- tailed testing is more common than we would
> expect" [in ecology journals], They report that none of these
> uses involved a satisfactory explanation.
>
> The authors' summary, in modest and restrained language,
> offers this good guide for the perplexed:
> 
> Summary
>
> 1. Although one-tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used,
> clear justification for why this approach is used is often
> missing frompublished papers.
>
> 2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of
> themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one-tailed tests.
>
> 3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a
> one-tailed test if they can explain why they are more
> interested in an effect in one direction and not the other.
>
> 4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of
> one-tailed testing requires an explanation why the authors
> would treat a large observed difference in the u

[tips] Diagnostic Criteria for PIISD - Private Insurance Induced Stress Disorder

[Annette Taylor]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/couchincrisis/content/article/10168/1707756?GUID=00829023-29DA-4262-B03A-A1C700B80B6B&rememberme=1

Great blog on the effects of health care costs on mental health!

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7749
or send a blank email to 
leave-7749-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Jim Clark]

Hi

I think of one-tailed (or Abelson's 1.5 tailed) tests as a kind of 
quasi-bayesian adjustment to the standard non-directional test.  That is, given 
empirical or theoretical grounds for expecting an outcome in one direction, 
then one needs less evidence from the present study before moving in that 
direction.  I also sometimes use a perceptual metaphor ... primed to expect 
some stimulus (e.g., meeting someone in a crowded room), one needs less 
perceptual input before identifying the person.

Also, it would appear that the same issues would arise with planned versus post 
hoc comparisons.  That is, post hoc requires some adjustment for multiple 
tests, whereas planned may not because of the expectation of a predicted 
pattern.

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca

>>> "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin"  07-Jan-11 11:06 AM >>>
Robert Abelson, in his excellent book Statistics as Principled Argument, 
advocates the use of what he calls a one-and-a-half tailed test for directional 
predictions; for example, you could set the alpha level at .04 in the tail of 
the predicted direction and .01 in the unpredicted direction. I always thought 
that was a neat idea, but I've never seen anyone use it.


From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca] 
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When 
They Pass You In the Hall

On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois pointing out
that Bem used one-tailed tests:

> That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and should be
> banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.
> One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can
> plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in the
> "wrong" tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would
> either be meaningless or of no interest at all.

I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do they not
do that any more?), in what appears to be a brand-new journal, has an
excellent opinion piece which fully supports my view above. How they
got it into print so quickly after reading my post, I'll never know.

The paper is this:

Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use one-tailed
hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 114-117.

After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary researcher
is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue, they say this:

"On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no grounds
for treating an experiment where the birds having a spectacular
adverse reaction to the supplement any differently from the birds
having no reaction. This philosophical lack of ability to act in
response to unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing".

Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!

They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where we are
comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,  "Use of one-
tailed testing is more common than we would expect" [in ecology
journals], They report that none of these uses involved a
satisfactory explanation.

The authors' summary, in modest and restrained language, offers this
good guide for the perplexed:

Summary

1. Although one-tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used, clear
justification for why this approach is used is often missing
frompublished papers.

2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of
themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one-tailed tests.

3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a one-tailed test
if they can explain why they are more interested in an effect in one
direction and not the other.

4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of one-tailed
testing requires an explanation why the authors would treat a large
observed difference in the unexpected direction no differently
from a difference in the expected direction that was not strong
enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.

5. These justifications should be included in published works that
use one-tailed tests, allowing editors, reviewers and readers the
ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the adoption of one-tailed
testing.

6. We feel that adherence to our suggestions will allow authors to
use one-tailed tests more appropriately, and readers to form their
own opinion about such appropriateness when one-tailed tests
are used.
-


Stephen


Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
-

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: mbour...@fgcu.

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Bourgeois, Dr. Martin]

Robert Abelson, in his excellent book Statistics as Principled Argument, 
advocates the use of what he calls a one-and-a-half tailed test for directional 
predictions; for example, you could set the alpha level at .04 in the tail of 
the predicted direction and .01 in the unpredicted direction. I always thought 
that was a neat idea, but I've never seen anyone use it.


From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When 
They Pass You In the Hall

On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois pointing out
that Bem used one-tailed tests:

> That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and should be
> banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.
> One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can
> plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in the
> "wrong" tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would
> either be meaningless or of no interest at all.

I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do they not
do that any more?), in what appears to be a brand-new journal, has an
excellent opinion piece which fully supports my view above. How they
got it into print so quickly after reading my post, I'll never know.

The paper is this:

Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use one-tailed
hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 114-117.

After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary researcher
is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue, they say this:

"On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no grounds
for treating an experiment where the birds having a spectacular
adverse reaction to the supplement any differently from the birds
having no reaction. This philosophical lack of ability to act in
response to unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing".

Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!

They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where we are
comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,  "Use of one-
tailed testing is more common than we would expect" [in ecology
journals], They report that none of these uses involved a
satisfactory explanation.

The authors' summary, in modest and restrained language, offers this
good guide for the perplexed:

Summary

1. Although one-tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used, clear
justification for why this approach is used is often missing
frompublished papers.

2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of
themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one-tailed tests.

3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a one-tailed test
if they can explain why they are more interested in an effect in one
direction and not the other.

4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of one-tailed
testing requires an explanation why the authors would treat a large
observed difference in the unexpected direction no differently
from a difference in the expected direction that was not strong
enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.

5. These justifications should be included in published works that
use one-tailed tests, allowing editors, reviewers and readers the
ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the adoption of one-tailed
testing.

6. We feel that adherence to our suggestions will allow authors to
use one-tailed tests more appropriately, and readers to form their
own opinion about such appropriateness when one-tailed tests
are used.
-


Stephen


Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
-

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: mbour...@fgcu.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13390.2bbc1cc8fd0e5f9e0b91f01828c87814&n=T&l=tips&o=7744
or send a blank email to 
leave-7744-13390.2bbc1cc8fd0e5f9e0b91f01828c87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7746
or send a blank email to 
leave-7746-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Paul C Bernhardt]

I've often felt that in teaching statistics to psychology (and other social 
science students) we do them a disservice by teaching one tailed testing. It is 
a potential point of confusion that does not end up being useful if understood 
properly. If I could get away with it, I'd avoid teaching it altogether. But, 
textbooks tend to put such emphasis on the distinction that skipping it would 
be very confusing to students. 

Paul C. Bernhardt
Department of Psychology
Frostburg State University
Frostburg, Maryland



-Original Message-
From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca]
Sent: Fri 1/7/2011 11:04 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When 
They Pass You In the Hall
 
On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois pointing out 
that Bem used one-tailed tests:

> That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and should be 
> banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.  
> One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can 
> plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in the 
> "wrong" tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would 
> either be meaningless or of no interest at all.  

I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do they not 
do that any more?), in what appears to be a brand-new journal, has an 
excellent opinion piece which fully supports my view above. How they 
got it into print so quickly after reading my post, I'll never know.

The paper is this:

Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use one-tailed 
hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 114-117.

After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary researcher 
is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue, they say this:

"On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no grounds 
for treating an experiment where the birds having a spectacular 
adverse reaction to the supplement any differently from the birds 
having no reaction. This philosophical lack of ability to act in 
response to unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing". 

Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!

They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where we are 
comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,  "Use of one-
tailed testing is more common than we would expect" [in ecology 
journals], They report that none of these uses involved a 
satisfactory explanation. 

The authors' summary, in modest and restrained language, offers this 
good guide for the perplexed:

Summary

1. Although one-tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used, clear 
justification for why this approach is used is often missing 
frompublished papers.

2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of 
themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one-tailed tests.

3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a one-tailed test 
if they can explain why they are more interested in an effect in one 
direction and not the other.

4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of one-tailed 
testing requires an explanation why the authors would treat a large 
observed difference in the unexpected direction no differently
from a difference in the expected direction that was not strong 
enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.

5. These justifications should be included in published works that 
use one-tailed tests, allowing editors, reviewers and readers the 
ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the adoption of one-tailed
testing.

6. We feel that adherence to our suggestions will allow authors to 
use one-tailed tests more appropriately, and readers to form their 
own opinion about such appropriateness when one-tailed tests
are used.
-


Stephen


Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.  
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada   
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
-

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=7744
or send a blank email to 
leave-7744-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7745
or send a blank email to 
leave-7745-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<>

Re: [tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[sblack]

On 6 Jan 2011, I wrote in response to Martin Bourgeois pointing out 
that Bem used one-tailed tests:

> That's interesting, disturbing, in fact. I've long argued that one-
> tailed tests are almost uniformly misused in psychology and should be 
> banned. Making a one-sided prediction is insufficient justification.  
> One should only be allowed to use a one-tailed test if one can 
> plausibly argue that not only do I not predict a result in the 
> "wrong" tail, but that if such a perverse result occurred, it would 
> either be meaningless or of no interest at all.  

I am happy to report that a paper hot off the press (or do they not 
do that any more?), in what appears to be a brand-new journal, has an 
excellent opinion piece which fully supports my view above. How they 
got it into print so quickly after reading my post, I'll never know.

The paper is this:

Ruxton, G, and Neuhauser, M. (2010). When should we use one-tailed 
hypothesis testing? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 114-117.

After giving a great example of the tangled mess an unwary researcher 
is faced with when a one-tailed test goes rogue, they say this:

"On the basis of their statistical test, the scientist has no grounds 
for treating an experiment where the birds having a spectacular 
adverse reaction to the supplement any differently from the birds 
having no reaction. This philosophical lack of ability to act in 
response to unexpected results is the cost of one-tailed testing". 

Amen! Cut your costs! Help stamp out one-tailed tests!

They also say "We rarely find ourselves in a position where we are 
comfortable with using  a one-tailed test", and later,  "Use of one-
tailed testing is more common than we would expect" [in ecology 
journals], They report that none of these uses involved a 
satisfactory explanation. 

The authors' summary, in modest and restrained language, offers this 
good guide for the perplexed:

Summary

1. Although one-tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used, clear 
justification for why this approach is used is often missing 
frompublished papers.

2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of 
themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one-tailed tests.

3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a one-tailed test 
if they can explain why they are more interested in an effect in one 
direction and not the other.

4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of one-tailed 
testing requires an explanation why the authors would treat a large 
observed difference in the unexpected direction no differently
from a difference in the expected direction that was not strong 
enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.

5. These justifications should be included in published works that 
use one-tailed tests, allowing editors, reviewers and readers the 
ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the adoption of one-tailed
testing.

6. We feel that adherence to our suggestions will allow authors to 
use one-tailed tests more appropriately, and readers to form their 
own opinion about such appropriateness when one-tailed tests
are used.
-


Stephen


Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.  
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada   
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
-

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7744
or send a blank email to 
leave-7744-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Deliberate practice and improving teaching WAS: [tips] Book Recommendations

[Claudia Stanny]

Ken's comments about reflecting on student course comments as a form of
deliberate practice for improving teaching is consistent with Bill
McKeachie's findings on this practice.

Ken Bain has an excellent book (*What the Best College Teachers Do*) that
presents findings based on in-depth interviews and observations of 63
individuals identified as expert teachers because they had made a
significant positive impact on students, had strong reputations for teaching
among their colleagues, and/or won multiple rigorous teaching awards.  The
various practices he describes are all consistent with a consistent and
deliberate process of continuous examination and revision of their teaching.

Skilled mentors can be part of this reflective process, especially early in
a person's teaching career.  At some point, the feedback must come from
other sources.  This is where I think scholarship of teaching and learning
may come into play.

Claudia Stanny

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7743
or send a blank email to 
leave-7743-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Women's Tears A Turn-off For Men

[Lilienfeld, Scott O]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:10 AM, "Mike Palij"  wrote:

> But probably not in the way you might think it does.  The NY Times
> has a news article based on research published in this week's Science
> on the effect of "sniffing" women's tears (shed to, say, a "tear jerker"
> of a movie like "Terms of Endearment") on men's responses on a variety
> of measures.  For the NY Times article, see:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/science/07tears.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha3&pagewanted=all
>
> Perhaps the following quotes best summarizes the point of the research:
>
> |The researchers accidentally happened upon the evidence that women’s
> |tears make men feel as if they have taken a cold shower.
> |
> |They had assumed chemical signals from tears would trigger sadness or
> |empathy in others. But initial experiments found that sniffing women’s tears
> |did not affect men’s mood or empathy, but “had a pronounced influence
> |on sexual arousal, a surprise,” Dr. Sobel said.
>
> And
>
> |In several experiments, researchers found that men who sniffed drops
> |of women’s emotional tears became less sexually aroused than when
> |they sniffed a neutral saline solution that had been dribbled down
> |women’s cheeks. While the studies were not large, the findings showed
> |up in a variety of ways, including testosterone levels, skin responses,
> |brain imaging and the men’s descriptions of their arousal.
>
> Not addressed in the NY Times article is whether rapists have the same
> response.  My feeling is that they may not but it's an empirical questions.
>
> -Mike Palij
> New York University
> m...@nyu.edu
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: slil...@emory.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=7735
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-7735-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7742
or send a blank email to 
leave-7742-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE:[tips] Healing power of pets?

[Pollak, Edward]

Rick Froman wrote, ".  if your outcome is a physical measure of 
health, you can see if those pet-lovers exposed to pets have better health 
outcomes than those not exposed to pets."



Rick makes a point that we need to impress on all our students, i.e., the  
importance of interactions. We get so caught up in looking for "main effects"  
(e.g., pets are good for our health) that we too often fail to look for the 
obvious interactions, (e.g., pets are good for the health of those who love 
pets but not necessarily for the health of non-pet lovers). My old mentor used 
t say that "there's no such thing as a main effect." It's a great point.  Even 
something such as the effect of oxygen being necessary for life depends on the 
organism in question.. or the universe in which the effect if being observed. 
So a "main effect" is really just a  useful fiction.



Ed

Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
http://home.comcast.net/~epollak/home.htm

Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, & bluegrass fiddler.. in 
approximate order of importance.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7741
or send a blank email to 
leave-7741-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Graphics tablet users, anyone?

[Dennis Goff]

I use a tablet in one classroom where I teach statistics. The other has a 
smartboard and I much prefer that! One advantage of either technology is that 
you can save classroom images and post them on the class website. I also take 
advantage of the drawing capabilities when I am demonstrating SPSS. Those allow 
me to be more explicit about how to read output and translate it into APA style 
reporting. I do a lot of in-class data collection and having the combined 
technology allows me to move the data from an excel worksheet to a "writing" 
surface and to SPSS so that I can show them that the three techniques yield the 
same answer.  

I have the same problem with the screen taking up the middle of the board. The 
classroom is to be reconfigured by time we start classes with a smartboard to 
one side and the projector removed. My other complaint is the placement of the 
tablet (same problem as Ken described). The tablet serves as the monitor so it 
is in the monitor's position and not convenient to write on. My other problem 
with the tablet is that I am accustomed to gesturing to point out something 
important in the calculations and I find myself gesturing at the tablet. 
Typically good for a laugh when I catch myself doing that. This gesturing 
problem is why I prefer the smartboard approach. 

Dennis

--
Dennis M. Goff
Charles A. Dana Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Randolph College (Founded as Randolph-Macon Woman's College in 1891)
Lynchburg VA 24503



-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Fri 1/7/2011 12:45 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Graphics tablet users, anyone?
 
Hi

The link to Khan Academy prompts me to ask whether anyone uses graphics tablets 
in their teaching?  We have a few classrooms where projection screen covers 
much of blackboard, complicating switching between computer display and 
blackboard.  I'm thinking primarily of teaching stats, where both are helpful 
(e.g., to show spss commands and output on screen, perform calculations on 
blackboard).

Any thoughts on tablets or alternatives would be welcome.

Take care
Jim


James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: dg...@randolphcollege.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13169.2bfd597f06c032f81efb35e857e2dd91&n=T&l=tips&o=7730
or send a blank email to 
leave-7730-13169.2bfd597f06c032f81efb35e857e2d...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7736
or send a blank email to 
leave-7736-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<>

[tips] Women's Tears A Turn-off For Men

[Mike Palij]

But probably not in the way you might think it does.  The NY Times
has a news article based on research published in this week's Science
on the effect of "sniffing" women's tears (shed to, say, a "tear jerker"
of a movie like "Terms of Endearment") on men's responses on a variety
of measures.  For the NY Times article, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/science/07tears.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha3&pagewanted=all
 

Perhaps the following quotes best summarizes the point of the research:

|The researchers accidentally happened upon the evidence that women’s 
|tears make men feel as if they have taken a cold shower. 
|
|They had assumed chemical signals from tears would trigger sadness or 
|empathy in others. But initial experiments found that sniffing women’s tears 
|did not affect men’s mood or empathy, but “had a pronounced influence 
|on sexual arousal, a surprise,” Dr. Sobel said. 

And

|In several experiments, researchers found that men who sniffed drops 
|of women’s emotional tears became less sexually aroused than when 
|they sniffed a neutral saline solution that had been dribbled down 
|women’s cheeks. While the studies were not large, the findings showed 
|up in a variety of ways, including testosterone levels, skin responses, 
|brain imaging and the men’s descriptions of their arousal. 

Not addressed in the NY Times article is whether rapists have the same
response.  My feeling is that they may not but it's an empirical questions.

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7735
or send a blank email to 
leave-7735-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Graphics tablet users, anyone?

[Ken Steele]

Hi Jim:

One problem with lots of new classroom technology was that the 
equipment was being installed by staff people who do not teach. 
For example, a projector would be installed in the middle of the 
room and aimed forward.  This meant that the screen was hung in 
the middle, in front of and obscuring the blackboard.


In a similar fashion, graphics tablets were fixed into a computer 
monitor position.  They are useless in that position with the 
exception of crude movements like circles and X-s. I teach in a 
classroom with a graphics tablet in that position and have never 
seen any evidence that it was being used.


Here was our solution to the installation problem.  Whenever we 
refitted a classroom then we arranged to have someone who would 
be teaching with the equipment be present when the equipment was 
installed to make sure that the setup was usable.


So in our classrooms, the projectors are not installed on the 
midline.  They are installed to project to the left or right side 
of the blackboard so both can be used at the same time.


I think the combo of projection and "boardwork" on a tablet could 
be very effective.  I may try to have the tablet repositioned. 
(It is in a classroom in another building.)


Ken

PS - The worst installation I have seen was the following.  A 
department decided to try a "smartboard." The smartboard was 
installed literally in front of the middle of the chalkboard. 
The smartboard was then enclosed in a locking wooden cabinet to 
protect its delicate contents.  One needed to get the key from 
the departmental secretary.  (The key was promptly lost, of 
course.)  When the two doors of the cabinet were opened then the 
rest of the chalkboard was obscured.  And then a projector was 
installed.  The screen was hung in front of the smartboard. 
There was blank wallspace to the right of the 
screen/smartboard/chalkboard unit.






On 1/7/2011 12:45 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

The link to Khan Academy prompts me to ask whether anyone uses graphics tablets 
in their teaching?  We have a few classrooms where projection screen covers 
much of blackboard, complicating switching between computer display and 
blackboard.  I'm thinking primarily of teaching stats, where both are helpful 
(e.g., to show spss commands and output on screen, perform calculations on 
blackboard).

Any thoughts on tablets or alternatives would be welcome.

Take care
Jim


James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca



--
---
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.  steel...@appstate.edu
Professor
Department of Psychology  http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7734
or send a blank email to 
leave-7734-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re:[tips] Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall

[Allen Esterson]

Mike Palij wrote:
>(A minor note:  both Rudin and the RetroComm article use the
>same quote from Einstein, that is: |People like us, who believe
>in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and
>future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. |– Albert Einstein )

I checked for the source of this quote (thanks Wikipedia :-) ). It is 
 from a letter dated 21 March 1955 from Einstein to the sister and son 
of his lifelong friend Michele Besso, in reply to their informing him 
of the death of Besso. (Within a month, Einstein himself was dead.)

The relevant passage, as translated by Hoffman and Banesh (*Albert 
Einstein: Creator and Rebel*), reads as follows:

"And now he has preceded me briefly in bidding farewell to this strange 
world. This signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the 
distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, 
however persistent."

In other words, the sentence in question is intended to be one of 
consolation to the recipients, not necessarily to be treated as a 
precise scientific pronouncement. My immediate sense is that it is an 
allusion to the relativity of simultaneity: Events A and B may be 
simultaneous within one reference frame, but in other reference frames 
A may precede B, or B precede A.

See the section "The train-and-platform thought experiment" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org

---
From:   Mike Palij 
Subject:Re: Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When 
They Pass You In the Hall
Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:25:20 -0500
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:10:58 -0800, Jim Clark wrote in response to:
>>> Ken Steele  06-Jan-11 10:41:41 AM >>>
>>I read the in-press ms that was floating about.  Bem's assertion
>>(in the in-press ms) that he didn't need to identify the
>>mechanism of action permitted him to dodge questions about what I
>>saw as an inchoate collection of results.
>
>JC:
>This is the heart of the problem for me.  It is not just that no 
mechanism is
>proposed, but that any possible mechanism for the effect as claimed 
would
>violate much that we know about the physical world.  Some people make 
appeals
>to the weirdness of quantum effects, but Victor Stenger, a physicist, 
has
>labelled such claims as "quantum quackery."  He wrote a book on it, 
along with
>some other pieces, such as the following in Skeptical Inquirer.
> http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/

I went to Bem's webpage at http://dbem.ws/  to see if I could get some
additional info.  Let me make a few points:

(1)  Bem seems to have a long-standing serious interest in PSI and 
related
phenomena (as Scott L noted in a previous post). Examination of his 
list of
published works (see: http://dbem.ws/pubs.html ) appears to indicate 
that
the first published article by Bem on the subject is a book review he 
did
in 1989 for Contemporary Psychology (today, PsycCritiques) of
Stanley Krippner's (Ed.) "Advances in Parapsychological Research, Vol. 
5".
He ends the review with the following:

|And finally, I am impressed by the willingness of the series' editors 
to invite

|contributions and criticisms from non-parapsychologists (e.g., Irvin 
Child
|and self-described "public doubter" Marcello Truzzi). Their openness 
has
|done much to promote the recent peer dialogue. It thus seems ironic 
that
|parapsychologists seem repeatedly to suffer the indignity of being 
evaluated
|solely by outsiders: No Contemporary Psychology review of these 
"Advances"
|volumes has ever been written by an active researcher in the field.
|Volumes 1 and 3 were not reviewed at all. Volume 2 was reviewed by Ray
|Hyman, and Volume 4 was reviewed by the unfriendly skeptic James 
Alcock
|under the title "Advancement Through Retreat." I may be friendlier, 
but I am
|still a kibitzer. What other branch of psychology would put up with 
such
|chutzpah?
Ref:
Bem, D. J. (1989). Parapsychological data: A continuing projective 
test.
Review of Stanley Krippner (Ed.) Advances in Parapsychological Research
(Vol. 5.) Contemporary Psychology, 34, 649-650.

(2) On Bem's website, he has a page that has links to "Related 
Websites".
I found it a little strange that (a) he puts parapsychology (Psi,ESP) 
website
links first and (b) the links and info for parapsychology is about 3-4 
times
that he provides for social psychology.  See:
http://dbem.ws/Related_Websites.html

(3)  I clicked onto the "Boundary Institute's" link which took me to:
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/index.html
Of particular interest is the following links near the bottom of the 
page:

|Markov Chain experiment
|"Can Causal Influence Propagate Backwards in Time? - a Simple 
Experiment
|in Markov Chains and Causality", Shoup and Etter, 2002
|
|Abstract: We describe here a simple experiment in psychic phenomena 
(Psi)