On Dec 21, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Mike Palij wrote:
> *rolls eyes* Quoting from the Wikipedia entry on the "Pioneer Fund":
>
> |he Pioneer Fund is an American non-profit foundation established in 1937
> |"to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." Until
> his
> |death on
Hi
I guess someone forgot to tell APA that IQ scores were meaningless, unless the
1995 APA summary has been overturned.
http://mrhinkley.com/blag/IntUnknown.pdf
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
Room 4L41A
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
Dept of P
On Dec 21, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Mike Palij wrote:
> Did your advisor and Rushton compare the size of their penes?
I doubt they had such an intimate "Hemingway-Fitzgerald" moment. And I know
that associations between penis length and the length of other possible
correlates (e.g., shoe size; Shah &
The discussion of g reminded me of the International Neuropsychological
Society presidential address of Muriel Lezak. Neuropsychologists and
many others who use IQ tests every day recognized that the tests were
measuring a variety of independent cognitive abilities. The average
performance di
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:52:55 -0800, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. wrote:
On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Jim Clark wrote:
Sorry to hear about Phil Rushton having died. Despite his more notorious
ideas and his appearing on Geraldo...
I've been catching up on TIPS posts today. Jim mentioned Rushton's
appe
On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Jim Clark wrote:
> Sorry to hear about Phil Rushton having died. Despite his more notorious
> ideas and his appearing on Geraldo...
I've been catching up on TIPS posts today. Jim mentioned Rushton's appearance
on Geraldo, which occurred on February 16th, 1989, ju
On 'g' .. I suspect rumors of its demise are premature. The bottom line, for
me, is that "IQ" tests remain solid predictors of academic and employment
success, and when the items on them (any multi-item test of general cognitive
abilities) are factor analyzed, g is very difficult to avoid. Few
As I heard the story and I'm afraid that I don't have a reference handy, is
that Brady began training all the monkeys and used the half that learned the
task first as the executives and the others as the yoked controls. He thereby
potentially confounded nervous system reactivity with the effect
This study is commonly cited in methodology textbooks as a good example of bad
experimental design. Brady did not randomly assign monkeys to conditions;
instead, the monkeys who responded most quickly were assigned to be the
"executives," which could have been the crucial confound (e.g., the mo
Thanks Mike. I'll definitely have to check into these additional resources. I
read the Scientific American summary of the research by the authors and the
results he said he found was that the monkeys who knew when the shocks were
coming and who could do something to avoid them got MORE ulcers
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:23:12 -0800, Michael Britt wrote:
>Does anybody remember? What was that study in which monkeys were slightly
shocked - one monkey knew when the shock was coming but the other one
received
the exact same number of shocks but didn't know when it was coming? The
latter
mon
Right!
More rigorous replications failed.
And then we discovered bacteria and antibiotics.
On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:47 AM, John Kulig wrote:
> The _original_ was Brady, 1958 Scientific American the "executive"
> monkey study. In this study those that _had_ control developed ulcers ...
> other
Actually, I had a brief Tip of the Tongue but the internet cured it :-)
==
John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Coordinator, University Honors
Plymouth State University
Plymouth NH 03264
==
- Original Message -
From: "Mich
Tips to the rescue again! THIS is why we have tips. Thanks so much John.
Michael
Michael A. Britt, Ph.D.
mich...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.ThePsychFiles.com
Twitter: mbritt
On Dec 21, 2012, at 8:47 AM, John Kulig wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The _original_ was Brady, 1958 Scientif
The _original_ was Brady, 1958 Scientific American the "executive" monkey
study. In this study those that _had_ control developed ulcers ... other
studies dealt with predictability. It is my understanding the original Brady
study had design issues ..
Brady, J. V. (1958). Ulcers in executi
Does anybody remember? What was that study in which monkeys were slightly
shocked - one monkey knew when the shock was coming but the other one received
the exact same number of shocks but didn't know when it was coming? The latter
monkey showed more signs of stress, indicating that this eleme
16 matches
Mail list logo
