[tips] Psych science.?
This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com http://www.thepsychfiles.com/ Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40276 or send a blank email to leave-40276-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
The key I think is replication and more skeptical and cautious reviews of the studies. I also have started to discuss differences between what Psych profs teach; correlation isn't causation, beware overgeneralization, the importance of replication, stat significance doesn't mean practical worth or importance, and how they violate these in their published research or public statements. Students enjoy pointing out to me how psych authors routinely describe findings as significant and imply more than statistical relevance to this word when discussing their findings. Just need more humility in research? However, the trends or opportunity for public marketing of our images, research, and products would seem to be inherently opposed to such scientific humility. Not an uncommon or new tension for scholar/professional paths. G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94bn=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40277 or send a blank email to leave-40277-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Psych science.?
Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore [cid:image001.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.camailto:stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psyblocked::http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore [cid:image002.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] [cid:image003.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40285 or send a blank email to leave-40285-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
I don't see the beginning of the thread for some reason so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to (although I have a good guess). Might you be referring to James Coyne's recent commentary about Ellen Langer's research? If not, you might find his thoughts on the matter interesting (although I suspect you may have already seen this that this is what you are referring to): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/ Trent On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ *F**loreat* *L**abore* *Recti cultus pectora roborant* *Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D*., *Phone*: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, *Fax*: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy *F**loreat* *L**abore* ___ *From:* Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] *Sent:* November 18, 2014 8:20 AM *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) *Subject:* [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
Whoever started this thread (I have forgotten now) mentioned that there was an obscure erratum that undermined the results. Would that person care to cite the erratum for us? Thanks, Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Nov 18, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore image001.jpg Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore image002.jpg image003.jpg ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Psych science.?
The “obscure erratum” link in Coyne’s article leads to this: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/36/5/462/ L. Tollefsrud From: rtc...@gmail.com [mailto:rtc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of R. Trent Codd III Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:37 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Psych science.? I don't see the beginning of the thread for some reason so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to (although I have a good guess). Might you be referring to James Coyne's recent commentary about Ellen Langer's research? If not, you might find his thoughts on the matter interesting (although I suspect you may have already seen this that this is what you are referring to): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/ Trent On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore [cid:image001.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402tel:819%20822%209600%20x%202402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661tel:819%20822%209661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.camailto:stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore [cid:image002.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] [cid:image003.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting
[tips] Psych science.?
Perhaps, another Psychologist I must use to illustrate the violation of scientific and ethical principles? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40251 or send a blank email to leave-40251-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
Thanks for this. Claudia _ Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment University of West Florida Pensacola, FL 32514 Phone: (850) 857-6355 (direct) or 473-7435 (CUTLA) csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/offices/cutla/ http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Gerald Peterson peter...@svsu.edu wrote: Perhaps, another Psychologist I must use to illustrate the violation of scientific and ethical principles? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: csta...@uwf.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d550n=Tl=tipso=40251 or send a blank email to leave-40251-13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40252 or send a blank email to leave-40252-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
re: [tips] Psych science.?
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:37:58 -0800, Gerald Peterson wrote: Perhaps, another Psychologist I must use to illustrate the violation of scientific and ethical principles? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack Of course, one would have to cautious about making such a statement because no official or legal organization has reached such a conclusion. However, there may be other points that can be identified that are more factual. Consider the following: If one does a citation analysis of Langer's work through the World of Science (WoS) Plus database (the database formerly known as World of Knowledge) one will obtain the following facts: (1) Langer has a total of 4,603 citations for 55 publications, as based on the journals used by WoS (Google scholar and other databases will give different numbers but WoS are seen by many as being more gold standard-ish even if it does exclude some sources). This is a large number of citations indicating that the cited publications have had some influence. (2) Langer has a h-index number of 26 which is an admirable number but not particularly outstanding (for comparison's sake, Daniel Kahneman has 177 publications in the WoS database, and a total sum of 57,558 citations and an h-index of 75 -- not bad for a Nobel Prize winner). (3) WoS provides a variety of numbers for citations, both raw and summary, so one can do additional analysis if one is so inclined. With respect to Langer, examination of her citation number by year reveals some interesting results. Her most cited paper is the 1975 illusion of control article with 1,270 citations. If one looks just at the early years of her research career, say 1972 (year of first publication) to 1980, one would obtain a sum of 3,586 citations. In other words, About 78% of her total citations are based on the 20 papers (of which 2 are corrections) published during this time. In the subsequent 34 years with 35 publications, there are only 1,017 citations (or about 29 citations per paper, in contrast to about 199 citations per paper for the first 18 papers -- NOTE: the corrections have never been cited which is why is 18 and not 20 is used). (4) Is it possible that most people will be familiar with Langer's earlier work and continue to associate that research with her rather than her recent work? She has 19 publication for the year range 2000-2014 with 300 citations or about 16 citations per article though one article has 107 citations and 4 have zero citations). This recent work may soon have larger citation numbers and may reflect a late career resurgence of influence. But more careful analyses (e.g., examinations of the journals in which research was published, whether citation article are supportive of the original research or contrary to it, and so on) are needed to make more valid evaluations. So, there is much more to examine and think about. And it is likely that a variety of rival hypotheses may suggest themselves to explain, say, recent research as presented by Coyne. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40253 or send a blank email to leave-40253-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Psych science.?
All I posted this on my psych department’s student information page today with a reminder to the students that eminence (or indirect assessments of it including influence, for example) are appeals to authority and specifically not necessarily good indicators of the scientific importance or meaningfulness of someone’s research or position. Quacks cite quackery, if I may be so bold. I urged them to look at the connection to other scientific data and research practices and to rely on the primary literature and their examinations of the theoretical and research designs. Are they good questions/hypotheses and are they well tested and supported? Are they replicated? Are the results respected by those outside the group publishing the data or is it a “scientific faction” which often happens with fads and research that is less commendable? (We are all familiar with those still practicing and publishing results of hypnotism, etc.) Tim ___ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chairperson, Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: tshea...@collegeofidaho.edumailto:tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; vision From: Claudia Stanny [mailto:csta...@uwf.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:47 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Psych science.? Thanks for this. Claudia _ Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment University of West Florida Pensacola, FL 32514 Phone: (850) 857-6355 (direct) or 473-7435 (CUTLA) csta...@uwf.edumailto:csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/offices/cutla/http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Gerald Peterson peter...@svsu.edumailto:peter...@svsu.edu wrote: Perhaps, another Psychologist I must use to illustrate the violation of scientific and ethical principles? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: csta...@uwf.edumailto:csta...@uwf.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d550n=Tl=tipso=40251 or send a blank email to leave-40251-13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40251-13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tshea...@collegeofidaho.edumailto:tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13545.bae00fb8b4115786ba5dbbb67b9b177an=Tl=tipso=40252 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40252-13545.bae00fb8b4115786ba5dbbb67b9b1...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40252-13545.bae00fb8b4115786ba5dbbb67b9b1...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40255 or send a blank email to leave-40255-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
