From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 08/26/02-02:52:03 AM Z
All of these questions are covered in research design, that's what
research design is about, to make sure the results are reliable and
valid. I personally don't believe any research results I hear about
until I've tracked down the study and seen that it was designed
properly, the results analyzed appropriately and accurately, and that
the conclusions drawn follow naturally from the results. And sometimes,
even if all that is done right, the media reports something different
from the findings anyway. This is why all students in school, in
addition to learning art (there, I got within shouting distance of
topic) should also learn how to read and interpret research.
But Sandy, I can tell you that touching would not be part of the design,
if Shannon's study was legitimate research, (and certainly we don't
know this for sure without seeing the study ourselves. There are a lot
of "studies" that everyone knows about, like the one where they flashed
"Drink Coke" or whatever it was on the movie screen and everyone got up
and bought Coke? Never happened, there's no such study. I know a
psychologist who spent a lot of time looking for this study and finally
tracked it to an advertising man who just made it up.) because all
research involving human subjects has to go through human subjects
review, and a human subjects reviewer at any institution would not
Katharine Thayer
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Sandy King wrote:
>
> > I must admit to some skepticism regarding the finding that looking at
> > a woman's breast for 15 minutes a day is as beneficial to health as
> > jogging. Realistically how one would design an experiment to test
> > such a hypothesis? Would the man just sit in place for 15 minutes and
> > stare, or might there be touching? Also, I have to presume that
> > looking at some breasts would provide ore health benefits than
> > looking at others? And how would we test whether more health benefits
> > are derived from looking at the breasts of one's spouse or partner,
> > or by gazing on foreign ones?
>
> Thanks Sandy -- a breath of fresh air.
>
> The thing does sound like that hoax got a lot of coverage a couple of
> years ago -- a paper supposedly on an advanced topic of sociology,
> deliberately conceived to be gibberish. It was accepted for a prestigious
> conference & published... And whichever journal it was is still smarting
> in embarrassment. Of course we don't know where this hoax originated... is
> Shannon the only one heard of it?
>
> On the other hand, maybe while the men were looking at the breasts they
> weren't speeding in traffic, or eating french fries. I'd also like to know
> if this was claimed to be a double-blind test -- if not how did they
> select the participants, and how did they check them -- against a control
> group? Or merely note an improvement in each fellow?
>
> > In any event I am going to continue the outdoor exercise for my
> > health, jogging, cycling, etc. and keep the breast gazing in its
> > natural, unscientific setting.
>
> Why stop there? We haven't begun to scratch the surface... what other
> parts could be looked at for health benefits? And, since women tend to
> outlive men, what are they looking at?
>
> etc.
>
> J,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST