UC Berkeley child study exposed?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
:laugh:


"and forced them to conform to their Socialist ideals, causing the future conservatives to feel resentful"

And I thought the orignal post was biased, that lady is a nutcase btw. But whatever workds for you fringe folks.

Lookout! grab the tinfoil! the commies are gonna eat your children!

What you think of Michelle or the person who provided the information is of no concern to the issue at hand. It's obvious that Berkely is vastly liberal and if liberals take their kids to daycare so they can be studied, don't you think that the results might be in question? This isn't your average daycare.

Youre a complete and utter dope! How close have you EVER been to Berkeley? I spent 5 years there. A few stats:

student body: 52% asian
% of asians raised as conservative christians: 98%

Can you handle the math beyond that? My father constantly gave me sh!t for being at a liberal school, yet the christian crap was EVERYWHERE. I seriously hate people like you.

So that makes it a good sample?

"I seriously hate people like you." I love you too.:heart:

One more time: How much time have you spent in Berkeley AFTER the 50s and 60s, or AT ALL? I spent FIVE years there, 1997-2002. Im guessing you have never been outside of Oklahoma or where ever it is you live. I have lived in the midwest, berkeley, LA, austin, Portland (OR), philly, and im moving to boston in a week. People are very different as a function of geography, but i wouldnt expect you to know that. Enjoy your small minded exitance...yes, that is why i hate you--your small mindedness.

That's great that you spent 5 years there and have lived in multiple places, but that neither makes the "study" valid, it's sample representative, nor does it allow you to know who I am.

Yes, yes, I know you hate me, I got the hint after your PM saying I should die, but I still love you.:lips:

Youre ASSumptions are invalid. Dont you get it? Answer my question, have you EVER been out of the midwest, where you live. If i was wrong im sure you would have said so. Youre a troll and a dope. Enjoy.

BTW, i said that closed minded people like you should die. But i wouldnt expect your feeble mind to understand the difference.

First off, there were no assumptions on my part, but plenty on yours.
Second, you do not know where I live or where I've been and it is irrelevant to this "study" anyway.
Third, "your PM saying I should die" is different from "people like you should die" how?

I have another Berkely story ready to post for you. I might post it tonight, or maybe wait until tommorow. Which would you prefer? :lips:

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004831.htm">In other words, ALL of the children in that study were the offspring of U.C. Berkeley professors, lecturers, and staff members.

The reason the Child Study Center is so popular is that they offer free/cheap child care/nursery schooling in exchange for the parents allowing their kids to be "studied" by psychologists all day every day.</a>

"How to spot a baby conservative" as one person trolled in another thread title has a little different light shed on it now. :laugh:

One thing I do wonder about though, who are these people who want their kids studied like this? That seems rather odd to me. There is no way I'd let someone do that even if daycare was FREE.

Oh noes. Their parents work at a "liberal" school. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

I'd say this piece of tripe exemplifies why Malkin is a professional infotainer and not employed in the sciences or any other field requiring objectivity and rational analysis. :laugh:

Try addressing the issue instead of once again trying to derail it with your BS.

No one is doing as you suggest in your troll post, I am just stating what appear to be the facts of the case.

Once agaiin, expressing disagreement with you and not "addressing the issue" are two different things.

Did you actually read it? The only pieces of factual information Malkin offers are that the child care provides its services for free in return for being able to study the children, and that the parents of these children worked at U.C. Berkely in some capacity. The rest of her rant is overblown emotional nonsense: baseless assumptions, unsupported stereotyping, and hateful partisan speculation. Her article is a troll, designed to inflame the Bush faithful into spasms of self-righteous indignation. It obviously worked.

BOOM.
/thread

 

[marincounty]

Just thought I would mention that apparently having the most liberal faculty
in the country is not a bad thing.
U.C. Berkeley is ranked the #1 university in the World here: http://www.webometrics.info/top3000.asp.htm

World Universities Rankings performed in 2004 by the UK Times Higher Education Supplement named Berkeley the number two university in the world overall.

Similar findings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute for Higher Education placed Berkeley as fourth in the world. These rankings were primarily based upon alumni and faculty quality defined by awards won, papers published, frequency of citation by peers, and performance relative to size. [25]

According to the National Research Council, Berkeley ranks first nationally in the number of graduate programs in the top ten in their fields (97 percent, 35 of 36 programs) and first nationally in the number of "distinguished" programs for the scholarship of the faculty (32 programs).[24] Similarly, Berkeley is the only university in the nation to have all of its Ph.D programs ranked in the top five by US News and World Report. US News also consistently ranks Berkeley as the nation?s top public university and within the top three for both Undergraduate Business and Undergraduate Engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley

Berkeley also was ranked the #4 top university in the world for Social Sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_Education_Supplement


So I am fairly confident that the social scientists at Berkeley know a little bit more about testing and psychology than Fox news contributor Michelle Malkin.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
:laugh:


"and forced them to conform to their Socialist ideals, causing the future conservatives to feel resentful"

And I thought the orignal post was biased, that lady is a nutcase btw. But whatever workds for you fringe folks.

Lookout! grab the tinfoil! the commies are gonna eat your children!

What you think of Michelle or the person who provided the information is of no concern to the issue at hand. It's obvious that Berkely is vastly liberal and if liberals take their kids to daycare so they can be studied, don't you think that the results might be in question? This isn't your average daycare.

Youre a complete and utter dope! How close have you EVER been to Berkeley? I spent 5 years there. A few stats:

student body: 52% asian
% of asians raised as conservative christians: 98%

Can you handle the math beyond that? My father constantly gave me sh!t for being at a liberal school, yet the christian crap was EVERYWHERE. I seriously hate people like you.

SHhhhhhhh. We don't want any facts intruding here. It's much more fun to see sog foam at the mouth.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Have you actually READ the study? Malkin is a troll but at least she had the decency to link to the study text. Read it yourself and you will realize the authors cover the limitations of the study in detail . . . while blowing most of Malkin's criticisms out of the water.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Again, Malkin, anomymous tipster, or you are not authorities on child studies. If you want to challenge the scientific conclusions, do it in a scientific, rigorous way, not out of context lighweight innuendo.

 

[Moonbeam]

The study indicated that conservatives are whiners. Who really needed a study to figure that. But we can leave that aside. The important thing about any truth that offends you and might cause you to switch your vote is that some demagoguery attack that truth. If you vote Republican because you don't want to know you are a chimp then ID is out there for you to satisfy and secure your brain that smart people have proved your God's creation. It the earth's getting warm and your wealth is in oil the science to asuage your conscience is paid for to prove it's really getting cold. All I really need is to know that the whiners idea came from a liberal place to know that I whine because I am right and intended by God. Nothing out of Berkeley could ever be true because the children aren't human there. I will be a conservative for as long as any fool anywhere can puff up some phony answer to anyone's push for the truth. I am a man of faith and have my hope to cling to.

Conservatives are a bunch of egocentric butt heads. Naturally they are going to whine.

But before us liberals let our good natured acceptance go to our heads we are going to have to own up to BS like this:

"Can you handle the math beyond that? My father constantly gave me sh!t for being at a liberal school, yet the christian crap was EVERYWHERE. I seriously hate people like you."

I would rather listen to whiners that this sort arrogant and even fundamentalist, intolerant hate. Are we to assume that whining is more deeply psychotic than to wish difference to die?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
SHhhhhhhh. We don't want any facts intruding here. It's much more fun to see sog foam at the mouth.

The only ones foaming are you leftists types trying to attack Michelle, me, or anyone who dares mention the apparent fact that their study looks to be faulty. I think it's hilarious that you and yours are going to such lengths to shoot the messenger and try to protect Berkeley.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Have you actually READ the study? Malkin is a troll but at least she had the decency to link to the study text. Read it yourself and you will realize the authors cover the limitations of the study in detail . . . while blowing most of Malkin's criticisms out of the water.

Yes, I read the study. The revelation about who the people who were studied are is something that puts this whole "study" into question unless the Professor changes things to suggest this only reflects kid's who's parent's work at Berkely and take them to a free/cheaper daycare.
You think it's a valid study using only kids from Berkely professors/staff? They are representative of a "whole"?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Again, Malkin, anomymous tipster, or you are not authorities on child studies. If you want to challenge the scientific conclusions, do it in a scientific, rigorous way, not out of context lighweight innuendo.

I did not say we were, however if you actually paid attention instead of foaming at the first sight of Michelle's name you'd see that what I'm pointing to in this case is the rather unscientific sample they used for this "study". Berkely professors/staff kids are really a representative of the whole? I don't think so. If a "professor" wants to do a real study he would have gone and gotten a wider sampling of people/kids to take part.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I suppose its no more harmful than sending your child to Sunday School.

coming from an atheist no doubt.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Again, Malkin, anomymous tipster, or you are not authorities on child studies. If you want to challenge the scientific conclusions, do it in a scientific, rigorous way, not out of context lighweight innuendo.

I did not say we were, however if you actually paid attention instead of foaming at the first sight of Michelle's name you'd see that what I'm pointing to in this case is the rather unscientific sample they used for this "study". Berkely professors/staff kids are really a representative of the whole? I don't think so. If a "professor" wants to do a real study he would have gone and gotten a wider sampling of people/kids to take part.

A anonymous writer feeding the hate of a foaming at the mouth reichwing nutjob pundit is not scientific, nor is your biased opinion of a university's staff a scientific fact.

The whole premise that this lady has a shred of credibility, her "anonymous writer" or even you do is lame especially when you post this crap.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: arsbanned
SHhhhhhhh. We don't want any facts intruding here. It's much more fun to see sog foam at the mouth.

The only ones foaming are you leftists types trying to attack Michelle, me, or anyone who dares mention the apparent fact that their study looks to be faulty. I think it's hilarious that you and yours are going to such lengths to shoot the messenger and try to protect Berkeley.

Except...not.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Have you actually READ the study? Malkin is a troll but at least she had the decency to link to the study text. Read it yourself and you will realize the authors cover the limitations of the study in detail . . . while blowing most of Malkin's criticisms out of the water.

Yes, I read the study. The revelation about who the people who were studied are is something that puts this whole "study" into question unless the Professor changes things to suggest this only reflects kid's who's parent's work at Berkely and take them to a free/cheaper daycare.
You think it's a valid study using only kids from Berkely professors/staff? They are representative of a "whole"?

Obviously, you didn't READ the study. The Block's acknowledge their sample is NOT representative of the general population but a reflection of how behaviors in this subset of kids correlates with the later political leanings of THIS SUBSET of kids.

Both you and Malkin clearly cannot read scholarly work. The validity of a study means it really measures what it says it measures. The baseline evaluations and the composite of politcal ideology at endpoint are reasonable assessments and have pretty good alphas (look that up).

I certainly have reservations about this study but Malkin and her points parroted by you aren't even in the ballpark.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: arsbanned
SHhhhhhhh. We don't want any facts intruding here. It's much more fun to see sog foam at the mouth.

The only ones foaming are you leftists types trying to attack Michelle, me, or anyone who dares mention the apparent fact that their study looks to be faulty. I think it's hilarious that you and yours are going to such lengths to shoot the messenger and try to protect Berkeley.

I guess the study must be true after all. I mean, just look at all of the whining you're doing!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Yes, staff as well, but that still doesn't change anything. Does Berkely offer a good sample base? No, no it doesn't, these "findings" may only reflect what Berkely types are like. So the hitpiece of a "Study" is meaningless as it's not a representative sample of anything other than Berkely employees who take their kids to that daycare to get free or cheaper care.

So you are arguing that any sociological study is invalid if it is conducted in a area that is seen or known as a "bastian of partisan groupthink"? If so, I'm guessing that there are a ton of studies that are done in and around conservative parts of the country that you have just concluded to be hogwash as well. But I'm going out on a limb and saying that you will support those as valid because they will somehow be in agreement with your positions.

 

[totalcommand]

And here i was thinking SoG was gone for good. Oh well.

Anyways, who really cares about this study? Conservatives' political views suck whether they were born whining, quiet, respectful, disrespectful...they still suck.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Yes, yes, I know you hate me, I got the hint after your PM saying I should die, but I still love you.:lips:

Notice no shocked emoticon.........typical liberati behavior, SOG, nothing more frightening than a psychotic liberal. Be careful.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: homercles337
BTW, i said that closed minded people like you should die. But i wouldnt expect your feeble mind to understand the difference.

There is no difference! LOL, yeah, sure you went to Berkeley.....well maybe you spent 5 years working at the Taco Bell on campus.......

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Yes, yes, I know you hate me, I got the hint after your PM saying I should die, but I still love you.:lips:

Notice no shocked emoticon.........typical liberati behavior, SOG, nothing more frightening than a psychotic liberal. Be careful.

I'm not afraid of some little psycho liberal. He may talk trash and think he is tough but what can a teenager do? It seems to be their job to play tough guy on the internet on mommy and daddy's computer.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Yes, staff as well, but that still doesn't change anything. Does Berkely offer a good sample base? No, no it doesn't, these "findings" may only reflect what Berkely types are like. So the hitpiece of a "Study" is meaningless as it's not a representative sample of anything other than Berkely employees who take their kids to that daycare to get free or cheaper care.

So you are arguing that any sociological study is invalid if it is conducted in a area that is seen or known as a "bastian of partisan groupthink"? If so, I'm guessing that there are a ton of studies that are done in and around conservative parts of the country that you have just concluded to be hogwash as well. But I'm going out on a limb and saying that you will support those as valid because they will somehow be in agreement with your positions.

I view all such psychological "studies" with skepticism. Most of these types of studies have an end goal/message they want to put out and their "study" is geared toward creating the appearance of enough evidence so they can proclaim whatever it was they wanted to proclaim from the start.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Have you actually READ the study? Malkin is a troll but at least she had the decency to link to the study text. Read it yourself and you will realize the authors cover the limitations of the study in detail . . . while blowing most of Malkin's criticisms out of the water.

Yes, I read the study. The revelation about who the people who were studied are is something that puts this whole "study" into question unless the Professor changes things to suggest this only reflects kid's who's parent's work at Berkely and take them to a free/cheaper daycare.
You think it's a valid study using only kids from Berkely professors/staff? They are representative of a "whole"?

Obviously, you didn't READ the study. The Block's acknowledge their sample is NOT representative of the general population but a reflection of how behaviors in this subset of kids correlates with the later political leanings of THIS SUBSET of kids.

Both you and Malkin clearly cannot read scholarly work. The validity of a study means it really measures what it says it measures. The baseline evaluations and the composite of politcal ideology at endpoint are reasonable assessments and have pretty good alphas (look that up).

I certainly have reservations about this study but Malkin and her points parroted by you aren't even in the ballpark.

Actually isn't not cut and dry like you are trying to present it as. In the "Discussion" portion he brings up the sample issue, but then in the "Some implications of the results" he just presents it as truth. You can not possibly continue on with "results" unless you think your study is valid - which it clearly is not due to the sample issues.

It's hilarious that you and the others keep trying to make this about Malkin when this has nothing to do with her. Her comments on the other issues with this study don't mean a thing and I'm not debating those. The whole thing is a fraud so the supposed "results" don't even merit discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anonymous emailer to a rightwing hack is not an authority on child studies, IMO.

No one made that claim. However, the information that this was a daycare for employees who got cheap/free daycare to let their kids be subjected to this "study" is important. It also shows that the sample might not be representative.

Have you actually READ the study? Malkin is a troll but at least she had the decency to link to the study text. Read it yourself and you will realize the authors cover the limitations of the study in detail . . . while blowing most of Malkin's criticisms out of the water.

Yes, I read the study. The revelation about who the people who were studied are is something that puts this whole "study" into question unless the Professor changes things to suggest this only reflects kid's who's parent's work at Berkely and take them to a free/cheaper daycare.
You think it's a valid study using only kids from Berkely professors/staff? They are representative of a "whole"?

Obviously, you didn't READ the study. The Block's acknowledge their sample is NOT representative of the general population but a reflection of how behaviors in this subset of kids correlates with the later political leanings of THIS SUBSET of kids.

Both you and Malkin clearly cannot read scholarly work. The validity of a study means it really measures what it says it measures. The baseline evaluations and the composite of politcal ideology at endpoint are reasonable assessments and have pretty good alphas (look that up).

I certainly have reservations about this study but Malkin and her points parroted by you aren't even in the ballpark.

Actually isn't not cut and dry like you are trying to present it as. In the "Discussion" portion he brings up the sample issue, but then in the "Some implications of the results" he just presents it as truth. You can not possibly continue on with "results" unless you think your study is valid - which it clearly is not due to the sample issues.

It's hilarious that you and the others keep trying to make this about Malkin when this has nothing to do with her. Her comments on the other issues with this study don't mean a thing and I'm not debating those. The whole thing is a fraud so the supposed "results" don't even merit discussion.

Hehe, you have quite a case of blindness there. It doesn't matter at all what anybody says, you are going to continue to believe in your illusions. You are sure that others are biased in their research and for very good reason. You cannot set your bias aside and naturally think everybody else is exactly like the you you are but do not see except in others. Objectivity is only for those who pay what it costs to acquire.

 

[Jmman]

Isn't this the same school that helped with the infamous "conservatives are crazy study?"
Is it really surprising that this type of result comes from a school where the faculty overwhelmingly are of the liberal persuasion?

And to the guy who went to Berkeley, "exitance?" If that is how you spell on a normal basis you might want to check into their refund policy......:laugh:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Actually isn't not cut and dry like you are trying to present it as. In the "Discussion" portion he brings up the sample issue, but then in the "Some implications of the results" he just presents it as truth. You can not possibly continue on with "results" unless you think your study is valid - which it clearly is not due to the sample issues.

It's hilarious that you and the others keep trying to make this about Malkin when this has nothing to do with her. Her comments on the other issues with this study don't mean a thing and I'm not debating those. The whole thing is a fraud so the supposed "results" don't even merit discussion.

ooooh... you got 'day and age' but I'm afraid the saying is 'cut and dried'.... (/speech nazi)