Every manufacturer may use the same batteries, but they don't advertise them the same way. Apple promised a specific quality of battery life, which the product did not live up to.
I don't know enough about ECT to have an informed opinion on the subject. I don't agree or disagree with the APA's judgment, I defer to its judgment over that of that random guy.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy in deductive logic, not evidence collection.
Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
"Stem cells come from embryos left over from invitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?"
Should be allowed: (respondents by religion)
73% Total 67% Catholic 77% Protestant 66% Other Christian 58% Born-Again Christian 75% All other non-Born-Again Christian
Appeal to authority? The point was specifically about the credibility of the source. Papers presented at the annual convention of the APA are generally going to be credible.
But as for your question, I trust the APA more than that guy, yes.
No. This is a different study we're talking about now.
The researchers reviewed several different studies, some of which were experimental, some of which were correlational. Since we had been talking about correlations, I quoted the correlational one. Your quote refers to one of the experimental ones.
Here we go:
[experimental] According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. [correlational] In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.
Most of your criticisms result from switching the results of the experimental study with the correlational one.
If you look at what they measured, it's not even measuring one variable, it's lumping together such disparate issues as being an aggressor, being a _victim_, and questioning authority.
Obviously they did not measure these things as one variable. If they did you would have seen the clue word "or". As in, "had more arguments with authority figures OR were more likely to be involved in physical altercations." They probably measured a dozen variables, some of which correlated significantly and some of which didn't.
It's not something that's become the One Truth, to be carved in stone, and that noone should dare question.
I'd like to introduce you to my friend, the Straw Man. Perhaps you'd like to attack him?
I'd be interested by whom. The tobacco companies "there's no correlation between smoking and lung diseases" studies, or the oil companies' "there is no global warming" studies are also peer-reviewed... inside the same organization.
The American Psychological Association is putting it's credibility behind this. If the APA can be bought like a Washington DC think tank, then we're all in serious trouble.
Were the control and experimental groups properly established?
No, this was a correlational study, not an experimental one. They tried to see if differing levels of one variable tended to appear with differing levels of another variable in a certain population.
Did the kids actively seek out violent encounters, or are they simply more assertive, and unwilling to let other trample on them? Many children are bullied and simply meekly accept it.
So, violent video games make people more assertive? If the null hypothesis is that violent video games don't affect behavior then isn't that it makes them more assertive equally as implausible as the hypothesis that it makes them more violent?
That they play violent video games may imply parents with poor parenting skills, as most games of that type are rated for 17 and up. Was any testing done to control for or examine the effect of home life?
Doubt it because that would be more difficult to assess. In any event, that variable could interact in that it enabled the relationship or made the relationship stronger, but it cannot somehow unmake this correlation as some people seem to think.
I'll bet you if I had a copy of the study, I could point out severe flaws in their methodology. They managed to find a correlation, how strong of one who knows, that doesn't mean anything.
So why bother doing studies at all? This study presumably was peer reviewed, by the way.
You seem to be commiting the common fallacy of finding a study that supports your view, and assuming that proves it true.
How can you say this when I never said anything about the theory or what my view was? I just pointed out a single piece of evidence. Should I not have brought it up?
In any event the quote I used was from here, and it says that you can get a full copy by emailing APA PR department. You could even email the study's authors and offer any objections you might have.
The point was the crime statistics could be affected by an unlimited number of other variables. Just saying this is not an attempt to "prove a negative" or some such nonsense.
Because of this overall crime statistics cannot confirm or deny the relationship. You need several different areas that are otherwise statistically similar (ideally identical) but have different crime rates and have different rates of violent video game play. If you can show that in all of these areas the amount by which violent video game play varies from average is not at all similar to the amount by which violent video game play varies from average, then there, you've got something.
I'd like to see someone do this kind of analysis (write a grant proposal), but comparing overall crime statistics for a nation and the rate of violent game play for the same area is not a useful comparison to make. That's called "uncontrolled". It's not scientific. Trying to base something on that is very much the Correlation != Causation fallacy.
This is a simple stastical matter. Thus, if there was a causal link between kids playing these violent video games and being more violent, we'd expect to see an increase in youth violent crime.
RTFA. Here you go:
In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students.
Studies such as these forget to examine other factors, such as "are violent kids more likely to play violent games?", and "are there violent kids who get their aggressions out through video games?", and "what in the kids upbringing or social situation could contribute to their violent behaviour?", and "do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?", and most importantly "what is the responsibility of the parents in each situation?"
RTFA and you won't have to make up straw men like this.
In this case, it's not your fault because the summary doesn't actually link to a description of the study. I found it here.
According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.
Furthermore, violent video game players "tend to imitate the moves that they just 'acted out' in the game they played," said Dr. Kieffer. For example, children who played violent karate games duplicated this type of behavior while playing with friends. These findings demonstrate the possible dangers associated with playing this type of video game over and over again.
Your objections might apply to a survey correlational study. This was not the design of this experiment.
If you like, you can criticize the study based on the generizability of the findings. So, you could question whether or not this experimental result would extrapolate into the real world. There, there's a valid objection you could have and it would actually be based on the study in question and not on how you imagined it would be. FYI
"For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."
is not scientific? Rather, it's just subjective and made up? Really, what's the difference between this impression of his and reading tea leaves?
Re:Indian image-word-verification workers
on
Google Reacts to Splogs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What you say may be true but it certainly isn't an argument against adding this kind of verification. If you make it more costly to do, it will happen less.
What they really ought to do is use a Bayesian classifier to tell them which blogs are spam and which aren't.
If they wanted to bring the share price down, they would do a stock split. That is in fact the entire purpose of splits. It reduces share price without reducing stock value.
Issuing shares is for raising money. It lowers the price and reduces the value of existing shares. Existing shareholders are hurt by new stock issues.
in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s, over 300 people were killed by dogs. That means your family dog is much more likely to kill you than any "wild animal".
No it doesn't. There are more than 300 times as many dogs in the United States than there are moutain lions. Dogs are more dangerous because there are more of them, not because they are more dangerous per animal. Your family dog is not more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.
Now that we've gotten past that part it would be safe to say that it would be very extremely unlikely to be killed by either a dog or a mountain lion.
Common operations require a ton of syntax in Perl. It's just written in punctuation characters or implied by $_. This syntax requires fewer keystrokes at the cost of readability.
Straw man arguments aside, count($arr) is better than $#arr because it's bleeding obvious what count($arr) does. And if you didn't know what $#arr does, there's no way to index that sort of thing in manual. Your only option is to get the book and 1) start at the beginning 2) read until the part where it explains that. The $_ variable is the same way. If you didn't already know how it worked, if it's not typed out there's no way to look it up. You have to read the book from the beginning until you happen to come across the place where it explains that.
A lot of code ends up going the concise route because when you know what you're doing, it's easier to write (less keystrokes). Then perl newbies / passer-byers take a look at it, don't understand it, and freak out and say that perl is crap.
Fewer keystrokes should not be a design goal of a language. Do you remember the first time you wrote a C program, and you named your first variable 'a', your second 'b', until you got up to say, 'l' or so, and then you realized that you saved a lot of keystrokes but it was impossible to tell what your program was doing. Then after that you got smart and started to give your variables descriptive names. The extra time you spent typing was less than the time you saved when trying to understand what the program was doing upon a later reading.
Slashdot Mirror
But one day, those kids are gonna be old enough to vote, and their level of education is going to affect their votes which is going to affect you.
We are all part of society, and kids need to be able to function in the society that we're all part of.
Future customers will benefit from the disincentive to advertise product components as being better than they are.
Every manufacturer may use the same batteries, but they don't advertise them the same way. Apple promised a specific quality of battery life, which the product did not live up to.
Shhh my boss can hear you
I don't know enough about ECT to have an informed opinion on the subject. I don't agree or disagree with the APA's judgment, I defer to its judgment over that of that random guy.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy in deductive logic, not evidence collection.
Regarding the debate, Bush is losing.
Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
Should be allowed: (respondents by religion)
73% Total
67% Catholic
77% Protestant
66% Other Christian
58% Born-Again Christian
75% All other non-Born-Again Christian
Appeal to authority? The point was specifically about the credibility of the source. Papers presented at the annual convention of the APA are generally going to be credible.
But as for your question, I trust the APA more than that guy, yes.
The researchers reviewed several different studies, some of which were experimental, some of which were correlational. Since we had been talking about correlations, I quoted the correlational one. Your quote refers to one of the experimental ones.
Here we go:
Most of your criticisms result from switching the results of the experimental study with the correlational one.
If you look at what they measured, it's not even measuring one variable, it's lumping together such disparate issues as being an aggressor, being a _victim_, and questioning authority.
Obviously they did not measure these things as one variable. If they did you would have seen the clue word "or". As in, "had more arguments with authority figures OR were more likely to be involved in physical altercations." They probably measured a dozen variables, some of which correlated significantly and some of which didn't.
It's not something that's become the One Truth, to be carved in stone, and that noone should dare question.
I'd like to introduce you to my friend, the Straw Man. Perhaps you'd like to attack him?
I'd be interested by whom. The tobacco companies "there's no correlation between smoking and lung diseases" studies, or the oil companies' "there is no global warming" studies are also peer-reviewed... inside the same organization.
The American Psychological Association is putting it's credibility behind this. If the APA can be bought like a Washington DC think tank, then we're all in serious trouble.
Were the control and experimental groups properly established?
No, this was a correlational study, not an experimental one. They tried to see if differing levels of one variable tended to appear with differing levels of another variable in a certain population.
Did the kids actively seek out violent encounters, or are they simply more assertive, and unwilling to let other trample on them? Many children are bullied and simply meekly accept it.
So, violent video games make people more assertive? If the null hypothesis is that violent video games don't affect behavior then isn't that it makes them more assertive equally as implausible as the hypothesis that it makes them more violent?
That they play violent video games may imply parents with poor parenting skills, as most games of that type are rated for 17 and up. Was any testing done to control for or examine the effect of home life?
Doubt it because that would be more difficult to assess. In any event, that variable could interact in that it enabled the relationship or made the relationship stronger, but it cannot somehow unmake this correlation as some people seem to think.
I'll bet you if I had a copy of the study, I could point out severe flaws in their methodology. They managed to find a correlation, how strong of one who knows, that doesn't mean anything.
So why bother doing studies at all? This study presumably was peer reviewed, by the way.
You seem to be commiting the common fallacy of finding a study that supports your view, and assuming that proves it true.
How can you say this when I never said anything about the theory or what my view was? I just pointed out a single piece of evidence. Should I not have brought it up?
In any event the quote I used was from here, and it says that you can get a full copy by emailing APA PR department. You could even email the study's authors and offer any objections you might have.
The point was the crime statistics could be affected by an unlimited number of other variables. Just saying this is not an attempt to "prove a negative" or some such nonsense.
Because of this overall crime statistics cannot confirm or deny the relationship. You need several different areas that are otherwise statistically similar (ideally identical) but have different crime rates and have different rates of violent video game play. If you can show that in all of these areas the amount by which violent video game play varies from average is not at all similar to the amount by which violent video game play varies from average, then there, you've got something.
I'd like to see someone do this kind of analysis (write a grant proposal), but comparing overall crime statistics for a nation and the rate of violent game play for the same area is not a useful comparison to make. That's called "uncontrolled". It's not scientific. Trying to base something on that is very much the Correlation != Causation fallacy.
RTFA. Here you go:
RTFA and you won't have to make up straw men like this.
In this case, it's not your fault because the summary doesn't actually link to a description of the study. I found it here.
Your objections might apply to a survey correlational study. This was not the design of this experiment.
If you like, you can criticize the study based on the generizability of the findings. So, you could question whether or not this experimental result would extrapolate into the real world. There, there's a valid objection you could have and it would actually be based on the study in question and not on how you imagined it would be. FYI
Did you notice how this part:
"For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."
is not scientific? Rather, it's just subjective and made up? Really, what's the difference between this impression of his and reading tea leaves?
What you say may be true but it certainly isn't an argument against adding this kind of verification. If you make it more costly to do, it will happen less.
What they really ought to do is use a Bayesian classifier to tell them which blogs are spam and which aren't.
Not to worry, this is what the transmitter looks like
If they wanted to bring the share price down, they would do a stock split. That is in fact the entire purpose of splits. It reduces share price without reducing stock value.
Issuing shares is for raising money. It lowers the price and reduces the value of existing shares. Existing shareholders are hurt by new stock issues.
Poster was talking about Bush. Yale-educated, born in Greenwich, Connecticut.
in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s, over 300 people were killed by dogs. That means your family dog is much more likely to kill you than any "wild animal".
No it doesn't. There are more than 300 times as many dogs in the United States than there are moutain lions. Dogs are more dangerous because there are more of them, not because they are more dangerous per animal. Your family dog is not more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.
Now that we've gotten past that part it would be safe to say that it would be very extremely unlikely to be killed by either a dog or a mountain lion.
Common operations require a ton of syntax in Perl. It's just written in punctuation characters or implied by $_. This syntax requires fewer keystrokes at the cost of readability.
Straw man arguments aside, count($arr) is better than $#arr because it's bleeding obvious what count($arr) does. And if you didn't know what $#arr does, there's no way to index that sort of thing in manual. Your only option is to get the book and 1) start at the beginning 2) read until the part where it explains that. The $_ variable is the same way. If you didn't already know how it worked, if it's not typed out there's no way to look it up. You have to read the book from the beginning until you happen to come across the place where it explains that.
That is why people hate perl.
A lot of code ends up going the concise route because when you know what you're doing, it's easier to write (less keystrokes). Then perl newbies / passer-byers take a look at it, don't understand it, and freak out and say that perl is crap.
Fewer keystrokes should not be a design goal of a language. Do you remember the first time you wrote a C program, and you named your first variable 'a', your second 'b', until you got up to say, 'l' or so, and then you realized that you saved a lot of keystrokes but it was impossible to tell what your program was doing. Then after that you got smart and started to give your variables descriptive names. The extra time you spent typing was less than the time you saved when trying to understand what the program was doing upon a later reading.
Somehow perl never learned this lesson.
Prepare to toil in our underground sugar caves! Remarkably clean, usable, state-of-the-art sugar caves, but toil you shall!
Our new Google overlords overhead that. Our new Google overlords do not find your comments humourous.
Technology Management and Marketing
Nooooooooo!!!
one wonders whether there should be investment in the replacement technology, since that will also be replaced in a few years