On 6 Oct 2000 16:37:42 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
< snip >
> my main points are:
>
> 1. psychologically, the concept is not clean ... underachievement is
> possible ... overachievement is NOT possible ... logically speaking
> 2. the notion of over/under achievement is based
At 03:34 PM 10/6/00 -0500, Michael Granaas wrote:
I'm still not sure where my thoughts are headed, but I'm definitly not
>seeing the same big problem as Dennis on this one.
>
>Mike
this is certainly ok ... no one has to work their way over to my position
my main points are:
1. psychologically
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote:
> michael ... the model of simple regression to help define
> over/underachievement is not mine ... it is just the standard way it is
> defined ... particularly within psychology ... there may be other
> connotations but, i believe i am corre
michael ... the model of simple regression to help define
over/underachievement is not mine ... it is just the standard way it is
defined ... particularly within psychology ... there may be other
connotations but, i believe i am correct in saying that this is the
commonplace technical one ... i
Ok, I'll play. Please keep in mind that these thoughts are still rough
and are put forward in that form.
If we in fact define over/under achievers as those who are outside of say
2se of our predicted achievment level we are "correct" in about 95% of the
cases for which make a prediction. Tha
ah ha ... a topic dear to my heart ... school psychologists love to talk about
over and underachievement ... here is my take on this
1. psychologically ... underachievement makes sense ... one can deliberately do
less than one is capable of ... for example, what about the possibility of
going int
