really?
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Because he was making a weird joke that I didn't get. The graphic made
> perfect sense.
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> Sre, you were just testing use, right? Right. Then why ask Gruss
>> to elaborate? Re-r
Because he was making a weird joke that I didn't get. The graphic made
perfect sense.
.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Sre, you were just testing use, right? Right. Then why ask Gruss
> to elaborate? Re-read your own post, dude. Eyeroll.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Sre, you were just testing use, right? Right. Then why ask Gruss
to elaborate? Re-read your own post, dude. Eyeroll.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Actually I read it and picked out the pertinent parts so even you
> could understand it. My bad.
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012
Actually I read it and picked out the pertinent parts so even you
could understand it. My bad.
.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did.
>
~|
Order t
btw, good one ;)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Dana wrote:
> see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>>
>> Don't be coy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please elaborate
>>>
>>
see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Don't be coy.
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> Please elaborate
>>
>> .
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>>>
>>> Fig. 4c is
Don't be coy.
On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Please elaborate
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>>
>> Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it.
>>
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Col
Please elaborate
.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it.
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/14302721
How would you know what I claim, you seem to forget what we're
discussing with every post.
Are you really this clueless or are you playing?
.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> Sam.
>
> Weren't you just declaiming how offensive it was to say that political
> beliefs are associate
Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it.
On Feb 19, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> The article Vul et el did was on studies of functional MRI (fMRI)
> scans which use voxels and apply some sort of gaussian smoothing to
> determine which ones to use. Same exact method Firth et al used.
Sam.
Weren't you just declaiming how offensive it was to say that political
beliefs are associated with personality traits? Larry is saying they
are different, and you are arguing with him.
Facepalm.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> The article Vul et el did was on studies of fu
this is the guy who thinks he's polite.
shrug
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> We all know we are our parents.
>
> Are you really going to start thinking like Dana?
>
> .
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm147/
>>
>> Both pa
The article Vul et el did was on studies of functional MRI (fMRI)
scans which use voxels and apply some sort of gaussian smoothing to
determine which ones to use. Same exact method Firth et al used.
http://www.edvul.com/pdf/VulHarrisWinkielmanPashler-PPS-2009.pdf
These basic steps common to mos
I've been stying out of this discussion mainly because I've been reading
the article that Sam provided a link to. I'm still going through the
article, but first and foremost it has nothing to do with the topic at
hand. Vui et al were looking at the unexpectedly high correlations between
personali
We all know we are our parents.
Are you really going to start thinking like Dana?
.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm147/
>
> Both parents were university profs, so I guess by Sam's definition
> poor Colin was doomed to be a liberal.
>
~~~
This just changed from real boring to train wreck and I should do the
right thing and look away... but you used up all your sympathy passes.
I'm trying to figure out if you intentionally ignore everything I say
that's proves you're wrong or it's just to complex for you to
understand. This last ti
Only in the sense that Sam's brain is a zombie. And yes, it is a waste ;)
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> Damn I thought this was about zombies.
>
> What a waste.
>
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Antho
age-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:21 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
>
>
>> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it
>> without even
eyeroll.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm147/
>
> Both parents were university profs, so I guess by Sam's definition
> poor Colin was doomed to be a liberal.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eric Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> http://kingsspeech.co
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm147/
Both parents were university profs, so I guess by Sam's definition
poor Colin was doomed to be a liberal.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> http://kingsspeech.com/
~|
Damn I thought this was about zombies.
What a waste.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/c
http://kingsspeech.com/
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:21 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk
d off of a true
story.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:21 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it
> witho
> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it
> without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that
> was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did.
No, you didn't, actually. Do you really think you did?
It was
> funded by an idiot and his radi
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> so not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating
> this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry,
> the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems
> to think there might be a differ
so not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating
this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry,
the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems
to think there might be a different problem. If I sank several days
into the statistics
It was written before the Rees study, so no.
But it talks about the accuracy for those types of studies. Measuring
that part of the brain.
"a disturbingly large, and quite prominent, segment of social
neuroscience research is
using seriously defective research methods and producing a profusion
of
I don't know if I'd call someone from the Department of Brain and
Cognitive Sciences at MIT ignorant of the topic.
.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Basic rule of science is when a scientist speaks about something
> outside their own field, their opinion is worth as
I don't actually think the Rees thing is that earth shaking. I mean my
life certainly hasn't changed.
I have not looked at the Vul article because I am doing stuff but are
you actually saying that it critiques the Rees article in particular?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> That
does it make methodological critiques that in any way apply? I mean, I
am sure that Sam didn't get past the abstract but you never know, even
a stopped clock is right twice a day, and based a fast glance, MRI,
feelings, ok, it might maybe be in the right discipline at least...
shrug, gotta go, th
That is true, no mention of politics. Out of the 55 articles about
measuring anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala response most were
insignificant yet they were reported as high in what appeared to be a
bias, maybe to gain more attention. Who wan't to publish a study that
says they discovered no
mmunity
> Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
>
> It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's
I am sure that the college republicans who attended CPAC here last
weekend will have some comments about that.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> well it would be a little more intelligent than it must be bullshit because
> whoever heard of a conservative college student, you have
The meta analysis touches on some areas in neuro imaging that's I've
had my doubts about for a while. I need to spend some time carefully
digging through it, there's a lot there. One immediate issue is that
the study does not address the neuroanatomical covariants of political
belief. Rather it lo
Actually that meta-analysis that Sam cited has nothing to do with the
neuropsych of political beliefs.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I am on deadline and don't have time to play. But I know, shades of grey,
> quite a concept, eh?
>
> History says that if I download this artic
Researchers are in it for the money? That's laughable. Until you've
done about 20 years salaries are usually under 40,000 a year. That's
if you can get a tenure track position in the first place. For
psychology at least the real money is in private practice or
Industrial Organizational consulting.
You only see the end results. I broke down the hours someone who does
this sort of research typically spends, Lets say its at an academic
psych department, typically you're required to teach 3 courses per
semester. that's 5-6 hours per week of prep time and class time per
course. 18 hours. Then th
re a study has to list it's funding source.
> Does anyone have access to that Biology journal by any chance?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:45 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Fox News?
-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:31 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it
: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:45 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who have been
paid by big oil are irrelevant, why don't you explain it.
Seems to me that you made "A&qu
ay, February 16, 2012 10:07 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?
So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil irrelevant?
BTW, that wasn't THE point, it was A point.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Maureen wrote:
&
er, am not denying or *Idefending* anything.
I don't know and that's what I've been saying all along
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Dana wrote:
> I *don't* care and I don't have time to download and parse it right now.
> I'm not denying or anything --- I am just not believing your descripti
I *don't* care and I don't have time to download and parse it right now.
I'm not denying or anything --- I am just not believing your description of
it, because that is *always* a mistake. It's just another journal article.
There are a lot of them out there. Some of them contradict one another.
Do
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say
it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending
it without knowing anything abo
I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who
have been paid by big oil are irrelevant, why don't you explain it.
Seems to me that you made "A" point that funding affects the validity
of research, and under that criteria your statement below would be
accurate.
However, that
in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
Assuming you looked and it mentions this article. More likely it's a
meta-analysis for methodology for whatever he was looking at when he wrote
it, which is not to say that the remarks in methodology may not apply to
the Uni
well it would be a little more intelligent than it must be bullshit because
whoever heard of a conservative college student, you have to admit. That's
where he was yesterday.
baby steps. Just maybe he has realized that there are things undreamt of in
his philosophy.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:59
So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil irrelevant?
BTW, that wasn't THE point, it was A point.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then
> every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharm
Doesn't matter does it. It was published in a peer reviewed journal.
And it is actually cited.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I am on deadline and don't have time to play. But I know, shades of grey,
> quite a concept, eh?
>
> History says that if I download this article I
I did.
Actually, the MIT dude and friends say pretty much what I've been
saying from the beginning.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> but you haven't backed up your opinion.
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion A
New research commissioned by the Today Programme and led by Wellcome
Trust Senior Research Fellow Professor Geraint Rees
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10122301
Keep laughing, you're logic is very flawed.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> no, because he keeps
If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then
every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company
will have to be tossed.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> no, because he keeps saying the funding is a bias but he doesn't have any
> actual evid
I am on deadline and don't have time to play. But I know, shades of grey,
quite a concept, eh?
History says that if I download this article I will find out that it
doesn't mention the article Larry posted. If it does say they calculated
it wrong -- and maybe that is what Larrry wants to look at
but you haven't backed up your opinion.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Well, I said he was trying to insult me with a study that I knew could
> be debunked without even knowing what it was, just by the description
> of it. She then ran with how perfect the study was and over a
no, because he keeps saying the funding is a bias but he doesn't have any
actual evidence about how it was funded at all, except for the word
"commission" in that first experiment or whatever
But yeah, I don't actually care about this study either. I just got a
bellyful after a few years of liste
in the US it is pretty much meaningless as the neo-cons are not
conservative but the have co-opted the word. This study in in Britain
though... so... not drawing ing any conclusions til when and if I go look
at the questionnare I guess
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> But
Well, I said he was trying to insult me with a study that I knew could
be debunked without even knowing what it was, just by the description
of it. She then ran with how perfect the study was and over a hundred
messages later still claims anything peer reviewed is unquestionable.
So this was abou
The plain English version:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-scan-results-overstated
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the
> authors conducted the meta analysis that may invalidate the
All of this sounds so much more interesting than web development...
On 2/16/2012 9:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the
> authors conducted the meta analysis that may invalidate their
> conclusions.
If you had simply said all of this to begin with, like this, then I
believe the discussion might have gone differently. Opening with a slam
against the study because an actor's name was tied to it, while
certainly a conversation starter, was probably not the best way to
introduce your views o
I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the
authors conducted the meta analysis that may invalidate their
conclusions.
And yes Sam I do know a bit about the field, so I think I am qualified
to respond.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> If you read the stupid b
Researchers are starting to develop fairly reliable questionnaires on
political beliefs. While its not my area, the reported psychometics
are pretty good. For instance:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470910902860308
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643954
http://w
If you read the stupid blog you would have realized it's based on this:
http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=4MrZ9zMJ&citation_for_view=4MrZ9zMJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
Short link here
http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php
It's was cited a couple more times then your
But what does "conservative" mean?
If we limit the definition to size and scope of the federal govt then:
* the tea party is not conservative as they favor a large federal govt wealth
redistribution for retirement healthcare and social security
* Rick sanatorum is not conservative as he favor
I detect a blog. A blog, Sam. No input validation at all, yanno?
Bzzzt. Still SAMMYDONTLIKE IT.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> And I posted my proof. You are not listening.
> But I like the way you defend an insult and turn it into a "The
> science is clear" discussion. Stupid
A good point was raised that it doesn't show what came first...the
differences in the brain or the changes. In either case, the conclusion
was true. Conservatism is based more on fear than liberalism is. If you
use a muscle more, it gets bigger...same goes with brain matter...
Eric
On Thu, Fe
And I posted my proof. You are not listening.
But I like the way you defend an insult and turn it into a "The
science is clear" discussion. Stupid shit that is.
But now that we're discussing the actual science, which you swear by
even though you don't understand it, let's get a review.
Nice anal
current Biology
Here's the link again
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I don't remember the name of the publication without going back to the
> Smithsonian Article, but it was a Biolo
I don't remember the name of the publication without going back to the
Smithsonian Article, but it was a Biology publication. It was
Biology...I remember the name began with an A...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> there's a good question. Look around, maybe on about us, and s
there's a good question. Look around, maybe on about us, and see if they
talk about their peer review process. They won't have posted the actual
review though I don't think. You could also run the study title and the
author names through Google Scholar to see if anyone has tried to reproduce
this,
you keep saying that. I spent all day yesterday telling you to post your
proof if you have some. I'm not available for nursery school games today
but I just thought I would put that out there. You had nothing and it was
painfully obvious that you had nothing .
Why not just say -- I don't underst
I dismissed it because it didn't state what Larry claimed it did, the
funding was totally biased and the results only work if people don't
change their mind. I would have to believe half of us are conservative
and the other half liberal but we can switch sides at will. If it was
a legitimate study
On 2/16/2012 9:37 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You do realize your FACTS don't add up?
> If our brains are hard wired so one can predict political stance, than
> how do we explain the people that change their positions?
I guess this needs repeating:
>> it *says* that complex thought involves more areas o
Good point. You can educate yourself to be liberal but there's no way
to become conservative. Yet it happens. Maybe people's brains
deteriorate, after university, and then they become conservative.
.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Actually, he does have a point...a c
Actually, he does have a point...a conservative getting a higher
educationwhat are the odds of that...
Eric
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Because the generally accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal"
> change?
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Sam
That too
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Because the generally accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal"
> change?
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> You do realize your FACTS don't add up?
>> If our brains are hard wired so one can predi
Because the generally accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal"
change?
On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You do realize your FACTS don't add up?
> If our brains are hard wired so one can predict political stance, than
> how do we explain the people that change their po
You do realize your FACTS don't add up?
If our brains are hard wired so one can predict political stance, than
how do we explain the people that change their positions?
Think about it, 90 random people in a London college and half are
conservatives. What are the odds of finding even two conservati
I think Sam needs to learn about single subject experimental design
and how powerful such designs are. For those interested they can start
here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_design
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> it *says* that complex thought involves more area
it *says* that complex thought involves more areas of the brain than that,
so the results are a bit puzzling. But I know -- CFSAMMYDOESNTLIKEIT
Unless I hear a better reason than that, as far as I am concerned it's an
unexplained fact. Interesting maybe. I've already told you how to prove
it's bi
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did
> it. Three standard deviations is statistically significant. The funding
> might show bias if you can document it. Maybe. Since you can't seem to read
> the sentences in thi
You can start here
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307453421/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=washpost-books-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0307453421&adid=1BVPCPMAZESPRHXFP17B
Here's a shorter article. Murray is up to his same routine, the gross
misuse of stats to prove a racially charged point.
here's a different view. At by the way, there is in fact a partial version
on Google Books; it just doesnt come back in the first page of results for
whatever reason. Call me spoiled ;)
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/what-charles-murray-gets-right/
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, D
that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read the
NY Times review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Dana wrote:
> Maybe? I'd have to l
oh... it's matrix algebra? I used to like that stuff. And I don't remember
anything about it either. OK good enough.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Without going into detail, it involves power analysis, and I remember
> darned little of the matrix algebra course I too
Maybe? I'd have to look at it to know whether I could. Is this something
that's on google books? NM I'll look myself.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the
> range of those results. A good well control
Without going into detail, it involves power analysis, and I remember
darned little of the matrix algebra course I took years ago.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana wrote:
>
> ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim,
but
> i am glad to hear that I do indeed sem
Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the
range of those results. A good well controlled study will have a very
narrow range. A study that has problems with reliability, sample size, etc,
will have a very wide range. Another way to look at it is if the range of
diff
ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but
i am glad to hear that I do indeed semi-remember this stuff. I m kinda
curious about the calculation they did a thousand times if you are able to
formulate a description. But it doesn't need to be right now. Take your
time
You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my
notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and
counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical
power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect
sizes.
Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did
it. Three standard deviations is statistically significant. The funding
might show bias if you can document it. Maybe. Since you can't seem to read
the sentences in this study, I am afraid I can't accept that as fact on
your
You can't learn can you?
The study was an intended insult. It defies logic. People change there
minds all the time or do you truly believe they can't. If a liberal
radio station gave someone money to prove their point would you call
it science? Yes you did.
The only thing they proved was that s
what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are
right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an ok 10 words or less
version.
In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else right,
these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%.
I re
Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at
statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as
follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a
significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you replicated
the study an infinite
It's called confirmational bias, and there are people on this list on
both sides of the political spectrum with the worse cases of it I have
ever experienced.
But it's nothing new. Look at how they treated the first person to say
the earth was not the center of the universe, even after he proved
just to be totally obsessive, here's the link and the heart of the
statistical validation. Note: p=0.011, which based on some semi educated
googling, indicates, according to the pretty little chart here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_distribution#Standard_deviation_and_confidence_i
LOL!!
Brilliant response :)
http://abhimanyudubey.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/trollface.jpg?w=207&h=170
On 15 February 2012 15:38, Sam wrote:
>
> OK, I just read it and it says nothing. Just an inconclusive
> assumption that can be a guide for further research.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:1
pretty sure that's right
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Depends on the standard deviation. You can draw valid conclusions for
> n < 100 if standard deviation < 2.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
> >
> > The sampling of 90 people is really really smal
that's true. It's more a study than 2 people. But really big studies are in
the thousands. You can't call it definitely proven without a shadow of a
doubt. However, if the sample was properly chosen, it doesn't matter, at
least theoretically. I am not going to swear that randomization best
practic
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
