Hi Tipsters
I am looking for a webpage that shows a card trick. You see several cards, you
are asked to remember one, and then magically the program shows it to be your
card. We discussed it on TIPS a while ago but I can't find the webpage. Anyone?
Marie
Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Associate
I'm still thinking about Jenny. If I tweeted, I would first tweet
this: When it comes to the classroom, if you pay attention, you just might
learn that the classroom is a very complicated place filled with very complex
individuals.
And, then, I'd send a second tweet: to
There are several versions of the trick where the chosen card is magically
removed. Googling Missing card trick will bring up several sites.
Doug Wallen
Emeritus
Minnesota State University, Mankato
On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie wrote:
Hi Tipsters
I am looking for a
Hi, All --
A poll:
Am I being too picky about the use of the phrase, highly significant (or
something similar) when it's used to describe a very low-probability result?
It sort of drives me crazy; all I can hear is my graduate math stats teacher
threatening to kill us if we ever said
I was told the same thing in my stats classes, although one of our resident
statisticians here has no problem with it. To be it's a dichotomous decision,
but I was also taught not to say things like a result approached
significance. Is this a somewhat arbitrary guideline? Maybe. But it's the
I get a similar reaction when I read that expression. The question for me is
this: Has there ever been a consensus as to what obtained p level merits that
designation?
Miguel
- Original Message -
From: Marc Carter marc.car...@bakeru.edu
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
That's a good question. I'm prepping for a discussion tomorrow of Bandura,
Ross Ross (1961), and they use highly significant to describe a result
where the _p_ is .02 – which to me doesn't really merit highly anything.
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology
Chair,
Highly significant conflates statistical rarity with impact (importance
of the effect, the size of the effect).
On the other hand, I think approaching significance can be useful and I
will defend that practice (although I wouldn't push its use in a
publication).
Many statisticians note the
I still emphasize this in my classes. I do not like significance used without
statistical before, as I find this soon leads to such statements, and other,
unwarranted inferences. However, other colleagues and editors apparently feel
that the context of such use (results sections, etc.) is
Claudia
You make reasonable arguments. It's debatable, ultimately, as the decision
criteria can be thought of flexibly (as in, this is early so I used a softer
criterion of .07, or similar arguments) OR as a disciplinary cut-off (as in, we
use .05 in the social sciences based on reasoned
The use is a highly irritating conflation of a dichotomous decision and
an indication of effect size.
Ken
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph. D.steel...@appstate.edu
Professor and Assistant Chairperson
Ahh Bach! (nodding with a smile).
Doug Peterson, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology
The University of South Dakota
Vermillion SD 57069
605.677.5295
From: Tim Shearon [tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:59 PM
To: Teaching in
No, you are not being too picky and this is why I think so: Suppose instead of
a simple t-test for independent means you had several conditions and for some
reason did a collection of t-tests among the means. You knew to take a
Bonferoni correction for alpha so that it was necessarily reduced,
To me, the phrase approaching significance implies that all we need to
do is run a few more subjects until we see significance, a practice
known to bolster your chances for a type I error.
Bill Scott
Claudia Stanny 04/22/13 1:28 PM
Highly significant
Dear Tipsters,
Cowles and Davis (1982) wrote an excellent paper on the origins of the .05
convention. It is interesting to see the position that some of the great
statisticians took on where the issue of where to set a guideline for
siginificant. For example, referring to chi square, Pearson
Hi
I do think there are places where qualifiers to significant (or statistically
significant) are appropriate. An effect that has p = .002 is quite different
in my mind than p = .048, and highly significant vs significant would
appear to capture that. Indeed isn't that the logic behind APA's
Dear Colleagues,
I teach a learning community (basically co-teach) a class that combines Intro
to Psych with English, and we're thinking of adding more literature to our
class. Does anyone know of a list of literature (so, poems, short stories,
novels, nonfiction, etc.) that connects
William Styron's *Darkness Visible *is a compelling memoir of the author's
depression.
*Elegy for Iris* (John Bayley) is a memoir of Iris Murdoch's final years
with Alzheimer's disease.
*Still Alice* (Lisa Genova) is a fiction book, written by a neuroscience
Ph.D.
Three off the top of my head.
Hi Marc-
Not only do I abhor the term highly significant I also dislike the term
significant. I always taught my students to use the term statistically
reliable instead. significant implies that the results are important. That
is a value judgement which should be made after careful
Agreed. Just present a confidence interval for the effect size. If
you wish, point out that the interval is very narrow, which, of course,
corresponds to a very low p-value.
Cheers,
Karl L. Wuensch
-Original Message-
From: Ken Steele [mailto:steel...@appstate.edu]
Sent:
I absolutely abhor the term statistically reliable, which implies
that a replication attempt is likely to be successful. Whether a replication
attempt is likely to be successful is a function of the size of the effect,
sample size, and control of extraneous variables, not of the value
Marie, remember all of the cards, not just one. :)
Cheers,
[Karl L. Wuensch]http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie [mailto:helw...@dickinson.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Card
Christine Grela asked about psych-related literature. Here are some
possibilities:
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Beautiful Boy
The Center Cannot Hold
An Unquiet Mind
As Nature Made Him
Running With Scissors
Tuesdays With Morrie
Over My Head
Imagining Robert
The Broken Cord
My Lobotomy
Still
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:03:12 -0700, Marc Carter wrote:
Hi, All --
A poll:
Am I being too picky about the use of the phrase, highly significant (or
something similar) when it's used to describe a very low-probability
result?
It sort of drives me crazy; all I can hear is my graduate math stats
How about any of Temple Grandin's books, especially My Life in Pictures that's
about her autism.
Lee
R. Lee Zasloff, PhD
Adjunct Instructor, Psychology
American River College
Sacramento, CA
http://www.wix.com/rlzasloff/animal-connections
From: Christine
Regarding literature related to psychology:
There is an old anthology of science fiction edited by Katz, Greenberg and
Warrick in the 1970’s. It is likely hard to get and a bit outdated but it
has chapters on development psychobiology, sensation and perception,
learning, social processes,
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:39 -0700, Steven Hall wrote:
Regarding literature related to psychology:
There is an old anthology of science fiction edited by Katz,
Greenberg and Warrick in the 1970's. It is likely hard to get
and a bit outdated but it has chapters on development psychobiology,
This reminded me that not too long ago the short-lived experiment ended in
APS's Psychological Science requiring reporting of p-rep (for probability of
replication, a misnomer, as it turned out).
Paul
On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Wuensch, Karl L wrote:
I absolutely abhor the term
Hi
I'm not sure I completely accept Karl's argument here. If by replication we
mean same design and sample size, would our expectation of obtaining a
significant result on the replication be no different for the original p values
being .5, .3, .1, .05, .0001, ...? I appreciate that the p
29 matches
Mail list logo
