UC Berkeley child study exposed?

[senseamp]

BTW, the study article itself says:

2.1. Subjects
Subjects were participants in the Block and Block Longitudinal Study of Cognitive and
Ego Development at the University of California at Berkeley, begun in 1969 (see Block,
1993; Block & Block, 1980b) for comprehensive descriptions of the study.
Subjects initially (about 1969?1971) were attending two different nursery schools and
resided primarily in the urban areas of Berkeley and Oakland, California; they were heterogeneous
with respect to social class and parents? educational level. At age 23 (about 1989),
104 of the original 128 subjects were intensively assessed. Of these, usable data for the present
analyses were available for 95 subjects, 49 females, and 46 males.

AND

? 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 different from much of America?a factor that should be taken into account.
Widely and properly perceived as reflecting 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 differences conducted within the sample.

So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: 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:

Keep trying to change the subject.:laugh: According to totalcommand it's because of your "intelligence" that you use childish attacks in your arguments.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Keep trying to change the subject.:laugh: According to totalcommand it's because of your "intelligence" that you use childish attacks in your arguments.

As opposed to discredited morons like Michelle Malkin, who have no argument to make or those like you, looking for any lame material trying to further a pointless agenda. :roll:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Keep trying to change the subject.:laugh: According to totalcommand it's because of your "intelligence" that you use childish attacks in your arguments.

As opposed to discredited morons like Michelle Malkin, who have no argument to make or those like you, looking for any lame material trying to further a pointless agenda. :roll:

It's OK. I know it's because of your "intelligence" that you can't stop from posting these sorts of childish attacks.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

Innuendo is not science. Implications are science. You got nothing.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
It's OK. I know it's because of your "intelligence" that you can't stop from posting these sorts of childish attacks.

You overestimate your own importance. It would easy to understand why you couldn't even pretend to have a point if you actually posted any of the vapid content of Michelle Malkin's blog in your OP. Others have already discredited the content of what she said. I was just adding to the chorus.

About the only thing she's got going for her is over more well known morons like Bill O'Reilly, she's prettier. Unfortunately, an ugly, sub-par mind like hers can spoil even the best of visual fantasies.

 

[Bowfinger]

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. ...

Your problem is you not only read, but unquestioningly believe people like Malkin. You treat them as news sources instead of BushCo entertainers. Malkin's piece is not an informed, reasoned analysis of this study. It is a partisan rant full of overblown emotional nonsense. It is a troll, designed to inflame the Bush faithful into spasms of self-righteous indignation, and you fell for it. Your blindly partisan opinion that it was a "highly flawed sample" is simply wrong. This was not a public opinion poll, it was a scientific study. They are two different things, with different sampling requirements. Your continuing failure to recognize this difference after so many have tried to point it out demonstrates willful, obstinate ignorance. Once you read and can comprehend the line I bolded above, you may catch a glimmer of just how foolish you look.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

You may state things, but that doesn't make them true. If we just had results in science with no implications, we would still think the sun revolved around the earth.

clearly you have no understanding of science whatsoever.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Keep trying to change the subject.:laugh: According to totalcommand it's because of your "intelligence" that you use childish attacks in your arguments.

As opposed to discredited morons like Michelle Malkin, who have no argument to make or those like you, looking for any lame material trying to further a pointless agenda. :roll:

It's OK. I know it's because of your "intelligence" that you can't stop from posting these sorts of childish attacks.

no problem. keep going on your pointless and misinformed agenda. i will be here to shut you down.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Yes, but rejection for the same reasons is exactly the same. Your problem is that your blindness is not in the wisdom of knowing the dangers of blind acceptance for in that you are quite correct. Your blindness is in the area of processing information and validating context.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

One more time . . . the implications of a study is what an author thinks a study MIGHT mean. The RESULTS section is what a study definitely means. I've penned letters to the editor for articles where an author(s) goes WAY beyond the findings of their study. In essence, saying something in the Discussion that's not readily supported by the RESULTS.

There's absolutely NOTHING exceptional about the methodological shortcomings. As I noted earlier, I could do a definitive study if you gave me 9 (or at least 8) figure resources. The fact that the study was performed in the Bay Area doesn't make it bad or fatally flawed. It just means the broader implications are inherently tempered by the small sample size and potential bias considering the population sampled.

---
90% of the drugs approved for use in the USA in the past decade have NEVER been tested on children. Yet they will be used in children given that many medical conditions are sufficiently similar in adults and kids to justify their use. It is a reasonable approach but does not meet the highest standards of evidence . . . and sadly is often wrong. Yet this is how the SCIENCE works in a process responsible for protecting the nation from unsafe and ineffective medications.
---

It's perfectly fine for you, Malkin, and others to disagree with conclusions drawn from a given study. But most of your criticisms reflect a glaring lack of knowledge on how research works.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

Methinks you're using the wrong definition of 'implications'.

The paper explicitly acknowledges the flaws in the sample, but guess what, every sample is flawed! This doesn't invalidate the study, though replication would be nice.

You're pissed off because of how the study has been misrepresented and used by other partisan hacks, and this is offensive to your own sense of partisan hackery. The irony is rather delicious.

Also, your hero is clearly violating copyright law, I hope you're proud.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

Methinks you're using the wrong definition of 'implications'.

The paper explicitly acknowledges the flaws in the sample, but guess what, every sample is flawed! This doesn't invalidate the study, though replication would be nice.

You're pissed off because of how the study has been misrepresented and used by other partisan hacks, and this is offensive to your own sense of partisan hackery. The irony is rather delicious.

Also, your hero is clearly violating copyright law, I hope you're proud.

Brilliant writing there.

And for the Grand Finale:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004831.htm

Update:

Jack Block e-mails...

Malkin is quite wrong in her account coming from an"anonymous tipster"and also in understanding the logic of the analyses.

There were two different nursery schools at each nursery school age. One was open to young University staff (secretaries, library workers, etc) including but not by any means exclusively young faculty. The second nursery schoool deliberately excluded all parents associated with the University, to increase the diversity of our subjects. 25% of the initial sample were black.

More important, the analyses were within the sample. Logically, the Malkin analysis therefore is fundamentally irrelevant and inapplicable. I suppose one cannot expect hasty and untrained reporters to be familiar with the logic of research.

I would add to Block's email: I suppose who cannot expect hasty and untrained posters like ShadesOfGray to be familiar with the logic of research. This is the intarweb however, so you are excused :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

Studies at the time of Shakespeare, before and since, however, have validated to a high degree of certainty that:

"A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: senseamp
BTW, the study article itself says:


So while rightwing hacks peddle in innuendo and suckers like you buy right in, real scientists present the full picture and control for these differences. Maybe if the rightwing was more concerned with the message than the messenger, it would figure it out.

Yes, we've been over that, but it doesn't change anything because you and your types forget that the next part is called: "Some implications of the results"

As I stated, implications and innuendo are not science.

The only ones focussing on the messenger are those of you who want to attack Michelle or others questioning this "study".

Methinks you're using the wrong definition of 'implications'.

The paper explicitly acknowledges the flaws in the sample, but guess what, every sample is flawed! This doesn't invalidate the study, though replication would be nice.

You're pissed off because of how the study has been misrepresented and used by other partisan hacks, and this is offensive to your own sense of partisan hackery. The irony is rather delicious.

Also, your hero is clearly violating copyright law, I hope you're proud.

Brilliant writing there.

And for the Grand Finale:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004831.htm

Update:

Jack Block e-mails...

Malkin is quite wrong in her account coming from an"anonymous tipster"and also in understanding the logic of the analyses.

There were two different nursery schools at each nursery school age. One was open to young University staff (secretaries, library workers, etc) including but not by any means exclusively young faculty. The second nursery schoool deliberately excluded all parents associated with the University, to increase the diversity of our subjects. 25% of the initial sample were black.

More important, the analyses were within the sample. Logically, the Malkin analysis therefore is fundamentally irrelevant and inapplicable. I suppose one cannot expect hasty and untrained reporters to be familiar with the logic of research.

I would add to Block's email: I suppose who cannot expect hasty and untrained posters like ShadesOfGray to be familiar with the logic of research. This is the intarweb however, so you are excused :laugh:

/thread

 

[Tab]

This thread needs to die along with the OP...