UC Berkeley child study exposed?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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:

He wants somebody dead and you go after his spelling then doubt conservatives are crazy? :laugh:

 

[WHAMPOM]

I just wasted my time reading all the crap SOG linked to. The conclusions of the survey seem valid for most of the population(my take on the survey). But won't support SOG's bias.

 

[totalcommand]

ShadesOfGray has always had a problem understanding statistics. We all remember the problem he(she?) had with CBS polling, when in fact nothing at all was wrong with it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1727173&enterthread=y&arctab=y

I'm sure the same thing is going on here.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

For the uninformed . . . here's a Cliff Notes version

Abstract: summarizes a study . . . the press and Republicans typically read the abstract and then write articles/opinions trying to give the impression they read the entire article.

Introduction: basically a review of prior literature and an explanation for why the current study was done

METHODS: It should provide a reasonably detailed outline of what was done. A quality Methods section would allow someone to repeat your study. It also includes statistical analysis methods . . . often overlooked by people that cannot count.

RESULTS: Along with the Methods these are all you really need to read. The Results are the explicit findings of the study. It should continue NO interpretations just data/observations.

Discussion: Here's the author(s) opportunity to say what THEY think the study means, limitations of the study design/execution, implications, and future work.


SoG acknowledged the author(s) noted limitations and talked about broader application. You know what we call that . . . scholarly work. An ideologue of the left would read it and say it applies everywhere. An ideologue of the right would read it and say not only does it not apply broadly but was fatally flawed by design and execution. An intelligent person reads it and says it has clear methodological confounders that limit broad applicability but the study in and of itself is quite interesting.

Block did his study on a shoestring. Give me $100m and I will do a definitive 30-year study sampling no less than 10,000 2-4yo kids across various demographics and geographical regions.

Until then you need to suck it up . . . and stop whining . . . oops you can't.:laugh:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I just wasted my time reading all the crap SOG linked to. The conclusions of the survey seem valid for most of the population(my take on the survey). But won't support SOG's bias.

Yeah, I suppose if you are a leftist you want to believe the study because it might make you feel better or superior for some reason. However, since the study is fraudulent the "results" don't matter at all. If this "professor" had done this study with a wider base, it may have come close to being relevant but that may have changed the "results" of his study and then he couldn't write the piece he wanted to.

My bias is against all sorts of these supposed "studies" where they make such generalizations and try to imply for the whole. You have to have a good base for these to even come close to having a respectable study and this one fails right out of the gate.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
ShadesOfGray has always had a problem understanding statistics. We all remember the problem he(she?) had with CBS polling, when in fact nothing at all was wrong with it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1727173&enterthread=y&arctab=y

I'm sure the same thing is going on here.

Keep believing in the CBS polling It has worked so well for you and your types in the past. :laugh: However, those of us who live here in reality want to see real polls with real samples, otherwise there should be nothing reported like that at all. No poll would be better than an obviously distorted poll.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I just wasted my time reading all the crap SOG linked to. The conclusions of the survey seem valid for most of the population(my take on the survey). But won't support SOG's bias.

Yeah, I suppose if you are a leftist you want to believe the study because it might make you feel better or superior for some reason. However, since the study is fraudulent the "results" don't matter at all. If this "professor" had done this study with a wider base, it may have come close to being relevant but that may have changed the "results" of his study and then he couldn't write the piece he wanted to.

My bias is against all sorts of these supposed "studies" where they make such generalizations and try to imply for the whole. You have to have a good base for these to even come close to having a respectable study and this one fails right out of the gate.

From the conservative tool Eugene Volokh

We're not talking about some rogue terrorist group, or even the government of Iran, which is deliberately and strongly oppositional to the West. We're talking about a country that we're trying to set up as something of a model of democracy and liberty for the Islamic world. And yet the legal system is apparently seriously considering executing someone for nothing more than changing his religion.

This is telling evidence, it seems to me, that there is something very wrong in Islam today, and not just in some lunatic terrorist fringe...

Naturally, Volokh's comments are on that turd Malkin's website.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the uninformed . . . here's a Cliff Notes version

Abstract: summarizes a study . . . the press and Republicans typically read the abstract and then write articles/opinions trying to give the impression they read the entire article.

Introduction: basically a review of prior literature and an explanation for why the current study was done

METHODS: It should provide a reasonably detailed outline of what was done. A quality Methods section would allow someone to repeat your study. It also includes statistical analysis methods . . . often overlooked by people that cannot count.

RESULTS: Along with the Methods these are all you really need to read. The Results are the explicit findings of the study. It should continue NO interpretations just data/observations.

Discussion: Here's the author(s) opportunity to say what THEY think the study means, limitations of the study design/execution, implications, and future work.


SoG acknowledged the author(s) noted limitations and talked about broader application. You know what we call that . . . scholarly work. An ideologue of the left would read it and say it applies everywhere. An ideologue of the right would read it and say not only does it not apply broadly but was fatally flawed by design and execution. An intelligent person reads it and says it has clear methodological confounders that limit broad applicability but the study in and of itself is quite interesting.

Block did his study on a shoestring. Give me $100m and I will do a definitive 30-year study sampling no less than 10,000 2-4yo kids across various demographics and geographical regions.

Until then you need to suck it up . . . and stop whining . . . oops you can't.:laugh:

:laugh: why did you leave out the "Some implications of the results"? This is where the "professor" tries to make his case for his goal. If a person doing a study knows their sample is bad and yet continues on anyway shows just how much they want to report what they want to report from the "study".
I noted that the author BARELY noted them but yet continued on with the report despite the obviously flawed study.

Block did his "study" with free money, and it's obvious that he continued with his goal despite the sample problems.
I suppose the "results" would be interesting except for the fact that these sorts of half-assed things always seem to flow from these types of people. Until they learn that they can't half-ass it, their supposed "results" should not be given any sort of weight.

BTW, the only ones whining are the people trying to attack Michelle and the others who see this study for what it is - garbage. Us pointing out it's faulty nature does not constitute whining.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I just wasted my time reading all the crap SOG linked to. The conclusions of the survey seem valid for most of the population(my take on the survey). But won't support SOG's bias.

Yeah, I suppose if you are a leftist you want to believe the study because it might make you feel better or superior for some reason. However, since the study is fraudulent the "results" don't matter at all. If this "professor" had done this study with a wider base, it may have come close to being relevant but that may have changed the "results" of his study and then he couldn't write the piece he wanted to.

My bias is against all sorts of these supposed "studies" where they make such generalizations and try to imply for the whole. You have to have a good base for these to even come close to having a respectable study and this one fails right out of the gate.

From the conservative tool Eugene Volokh

We're not talking about some rogue terrorist group, or even the government of Iran, which is deliberately and strongly oppositional to the West. We're talking about a country that we're trying to set up as something of a model of democracy and liberty for the Islamic world. And yet the legal system is apparently seriously considering executing someone for nothing more than changing his religion.

This is telling evidence, it seems to me, that there is something very wrong in Islam today, and not just in some lunatic terrorist fringe...

Naturally, Volokh's comments are on that turd Malkin's website.

So? He's wrong. If Michelle agrees with him, she's wrong also. But again, this isn't about Michelle or anyone else who sees this report as the pile of BS that it is - this is about the pile of BS "study". Keep trying to turn the focus though. :laugh:

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: totalcommand
ShadesOfGray has always had a problem understanding statistics. We all remember the problem he(she?) had with CBS polling, when in fact nothing at all was wrong with it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1727173&enterthread=y&arctab=y

I'm sure the same thing is going on here.

Keep believing in the CBS polling It has worked so well for you and your types in the past. :laugh: However, those of us who live here in reality want to see real polls with real samples, otherwise there should be nothing reported like that at all. No poll would be better than an obviously distorted poll.

It sure is working for bush :laugh: Funny that it took no sex scandal to make him a lame duck so fast. Just his own stupidity.

 

[totalcommand]

Michelle Malkin is violating copyright by posting that paper on her site, but I'll post this excerpt anyways.

How can you not understand this??????????

The nature of the sample. The sample, born in the late 1960s and achieving young
adulthood about 1990, grew up in Berkeley and Oakland, an enveloping cultural context
appreciably diVerent from much of America?a factor that should be taken into account.
Widely and properly perceived as reXecting liberal, even sometimes extreme left political
views, the San Francisco Bay Area provides a context that unsurprisingly and unembarrassedly
encourages liberalism and looks askance at much of conservatism. Accordingly, it
is understandable that, in its entirety, the present sample as young adults is liberally oriented.
However, and of course, any sample bias carries no implication whatsoever regarding
analyses of individual diVerences conducted within the sample.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Michelle Malkin is violating copyright by posting that paper on her site, but I'll post this excerpt anyways.

How can you not understand this??????????

The nature of the sample. The sample, born in the late 1960s and achieving young
adulthood about 1990, grew up in Berkeley and Oakland, an enveloping cultural context
appreciably diVerent from much of America?a factor that should be taken into account.
Widely and properly perceived as reXecting liberal, even sometimes extreme left political
views, the San Francisco Bay Area provides a context that unsurprisingly and unembarrassedly
encourages liberalism and looks askance at much of conservatism. Accordingly, it
is understandable that, in its entirety, the present sample as young adults is liberally oriented.
However, and of course, any sample bias carries no implication whatsoever regarding
analyses of individual diVerences conducted within the sample.

I noted that, but it does not change anything. The "professor" still continued on with his "results" even though it was a highly flawed sample. If you read what I posted you would have seen this already.

BTW, yes it did work for Bush. He won the election.:laugh: Keep believing in those skewed polls, we wouldn't want your bubble to burst.

BTW2, care to point out how she is violating copyright? Seems to me you just what to continue to whine about Michelle like the other kids here.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Michelle Malkin is violating copyright by posting that paper on her site, but I'll post this excerpt anyways.

How can you not understand this??????????

The nature of the sample. The sample, born in the late 1960s and achieving young
adulthood about 1990, grew up in Berkeley and Oakland, an enveloping cultural context
appreciably diVerent from much of America?a factor that should be taken into account.
Widely and properly perceived as reXecting liberal, even sometimes extreme left political
views, the San Francisco Bay Area provides a context that unsurprisingly and unembarrassedly
encourages liberalism and looks askance at much of conservatism. Accordingly, it
is understandable that, in its entirety, the present sample as young adults is liberally oriented.
However, and of course, any sample bias carries no implication whatsoever regarding
analyses of individual diVerences conducted within the sample.

I noted that, but it does not change anything. The "professor" still continued on with his "results" even though it was a highly flawed sample. If you read what I posted you would have seen this already.

BTW, yes it did work for Bush. He won the election.:laugh: Keep believing in those skewed polls, we wouldn't want your bubble to burst.

BTW2, care to point out how she is violating copyright? Seems to me you just what to continue to whine about Michelle like the other kids here.

I guess they haven't heard of "fair use"......

 

[Moonbeam]

I will say it again to SoG:

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.

 

[Harvey]

Michelle Malkin is a mindless neocon twit with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. Her credibility = 0.

Quoting the first words of the blog at the OP's link:

An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the "whiny kids grow up to be conservatives" study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.

Read anything else she's written if you need further convincing that her skull contains two or less neurons in search of an idea.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Michelle Malkin is violating copyright by posting that paper on her site, but I'll post this excerpt anyways.

How can you not understand this??????????

The nature of the sample. The sample, born in the late 1960s and achieving young
adulthood about 1990, grew up in Berkeley and Oakland, an enveloping cultural context
appreciably diVerent from much of America?a factor that should be taken into account.
Widely and properly perceived as reXecting liberal, even sometimes extreme left political
views, the San Francisco Bay Area provides a context that unsurprisingly and unembarrassedly
encourages liberalism and looks askance at much of conservatism. Accordingly, it
is understandable that, in its entirety, the present sample as young adults is liberally oriented.
However, and of course, any sample bias carries no implication whatsoever regarding
analyses of individual diVerences conducted within the sample.

I noted that, but it does not change anything. The "professor" still continued on with his "results" even though it was a highly flawed sample. If you read what I posted you would have seen this already.

The sample is only flawed if you draw conclusions that the sample cannot justify. That's not happening here, for the reasons cited in the paragraph above.

BTW, yes it did work for Bush. He won the election.:laugh: Keep believing in those skewed polls, we wouldn't want your bubble to burst.

polls had showed bush and kerry neck and neck. almost 40% of people support censure of Bush, according to Rasmussen. Bush is lame, and a lame duck.

BTW2, care to point out how she is violating copyright? Seems to me you just what to continue to whine about Michelle like the other kids here.

The article is only available via sciencedirect, which is a paid subscription service. It cannot be copied in its entirety to another site, only excerpts.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will say it again to SoG:

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.

The blindness extends to those who choose not to see, blindly accepting "results". Bias against blind acceptance is not something that should be derided as some here would like to do. Acceptance should never be something that is done without information and context.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Michelle Malkin is a mindless neocon twit with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. Her credibility = 0.

Quoting the first words of the blog at the OP's link:

An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the "whiny kids grow up to be conservatives" study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.

Read anything else she's written if you need further convincing that her skull contains two or less neurons in search of an idea.

Just another childish attack on Michelle. Do you do that because you know the study is flawed and want to shift the subject elsewhere? Do you do it just to troll? I am genuinely curious why you and your types resort to this sort of behavior repeatedly.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will say it again to SoG:

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.

The blindness extends to those who choose not to see, blindly accepting "results". Bias against blind acceptance is not something that should be derided as some here would like to do. Acceptance should never be something that is done without information and context.

and yet, those who deliberately misinterpret results should be derided in a way equal to their stupidity. being disingenuous and failing to listen to reason should never be done, in any context.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey
Michelle Malkin is a mindless neocon twit with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. Her credibility = 0.

Quoting the first words of the blog at the OP's link:

An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the "whiny kids grow up to be conservatives" study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.

Read anything else she's written if you need further convincing that her skull contains two or less neurons in search of an idea.

Just another childish attack on Michelle. Do you do that because you know the study is flawed and want to shift the subject elsewhere? Do you do it just to troll? I am genuinely curious why you and your types resort to this sort of behavior repeatedly.

i'll answer for my "type". this sort of behavior that is being resorted to is called intelligence. i understand it may be difficult to explain this to you. i have legitimate reasons for my attacks on Michelle, as well as my disagreement with you.

had you actually read the study in an unbiased setting, you would realize that it's not actually partisan at all. liberals are the ones who applied this "whining babies" part; there is nothing even remotely like that in the paper. and yet, you attack an honorable person at UC-B instead of going after the liberals who misused the paper. that's called being disingenuous and dishonorable.

your blindness is not limited to just the paper itself. it extends to the larger issue at hand here. you blindly accepted the partisan hackery of this issue, and now are demonstrating stupidity as a result.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey
Michelle Malkin is a mindless neocon twit with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. Her credibility = 0.

Quoting the first words of the blog at the OP's link:

An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the "whiny kids grow up to be conservatives" study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.

Read anything else she's written if you need further convincing that her skull contains two or less neurons in search of an idea.

Just another childish attack on Michelle. Do you do that because you know the study is flawed and want to shift the subject elsewhere? Do you do it just to troll? I am genuinely curious why you and your types resort to this sort of behavior repeatedly.

i'll answer for my "type". this sort of behavior that is being resorted to is called intelligence. i understand it may be difficult to explain this to you. i have legitimate reasons for my attacks on Michelle, as well as my disagreement with you.

had you actually read the study in an unbiased setting, you would realize that it's not actually partisan at all. liberals are the ones who applied this "whining babies" part; there is nothing even remotely like that in the paper. and yet, you attack an honorable person at UC-B instead of going after the liberals who misused the paper. that's called being disingenuous and dishonorable.

your blindness is not limited to just the paper itself. it extends to the larger issue at hand here. you blindly accepted the partisan hackery of this issue, and now are demonstrating stupidity as a result.

Your type resorts to childish attacks because of your "intelligence"? :laugh: Sure.

I have blindly accepted nothing on this issue. I have questioned the the "study" like any respectable person would do. Blindly accepting this "study" and trying to defend it by attacking people who question it shows lack of reason and maturity.

I have not attacked the "professor" - just his study, objective, and "results". You may think he is "an honorable person at UC-B" but that isn't the issue here, it's his questionable study that is.

 

[senseamp]

Scientists > Political hacks.
End of story.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Scientists > Political hacks.
End of story.

I agree. Where is the science? Innuendo and Implications aren't science.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey
Michelle Malkin is a mindless neocon twit with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. Her credibility = 0.

Quoting the first words of the blog at the OP's link:

An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the "whiny kids grow up to be conservatives" study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.

Read anything else she's written if you need further convincing that her skull contains two or less neurons in search of an idea.

Just another childish attack on Michelle. Do you do that because you know the study is flawed and want to shift the subject elsewhere? Do you do it just to troll? I am genuinely curious why you and your types resort to this sort of behavior repeatedly.

i'll answer for my "type". this sort of behavior that is being resorted to is called intelligence. i understand it may be difficult to explain this to you. i have legitimate reasons for my attacks on Michelle, as well as my disagreement with you.

had you actually read the study in an unbiased setting, you would realize that it's not actually partisan at all. liberals are the ones who applied this "whining babies" part; there is nothing even remotely like that in the paper. and yet, you attack an honorable person at UC-B instead of going after the liberals who misused the paper. that's called being disingenuous and dishonorable.

your blindness is not limited to just the paper itself. it extends to the larger issue at hand here. you blindly accepted the partisan hackery of this issue, and now are demonstrating stupidity as a result.

Your type resorts to childish attacks because of your "intelligence"? :laugh: Sure.

I have blindly accepted nothing on this issue. I have questioned the the "study" like any respectable person would do. Blindly accepting this "study" and trying to defend it by attacking people who question it shows lack of reason and maturity.

I have not attacked the "professor" - just his study, objective, and "results". You may think he is "an honorable person at UC-B" but that isn't the issue here, it's his questionable study that is.

His study isn't questionable nor are the conclusions he drew. It's your conclusions that are questionable, as well as the liberal hacks and this retarded Malkin person who, though up on her high horse, violates copyright law.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Just another childish attack on Michelle. Do you do that because you know the study is flawed and want to shift the subject elsewhere? Do you do it just to troll? I am genuinely curious why you and your types resort to this sort of behavior repeatedly.

I might be able to tolerate your inane reply if you've never read any of her other work, before. If you have, it suggests that, whatever her intellectual shortcomings and handicaps, yours are more even more severe when it comes to comprehending reality. :laugh: