From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 08/26/02-03:43:18 AM Z
Clay Harmon wrote:
>
> Not to mention the likelihood that even if the correlation is there, it is a
> case of multi-collinearity, when two things are correlated because they are
> both correlated to a third variable that has not been observed. I find it
> somewhat plausible that a man who engages in this sort of activity is
> probably less uptight and more fun-loving in general, which certainly is an
> indicator for a healthier existence. Or maybe men with arrested development
> just age slower. I sure hope so.
>
You're assuming that this is a correlational study, which can't be
reasonably assumed without actually seeing the study, and I would
certainly hope the researchers would be smarter than that. A
correlational design would not be a proper design for this question and
you're right, the results of a correlational design would be
uninterpretable. But no researcher worth his onions would ever design
this as a correlational study.
As to double-blind, (this from another post I've already deleted)--
double-blind makes no sense in this context. Double-blind means
concealing from both the researchers and the subjects which condition
the subjects are in, and can only be used where concealment is possible,
like when subjects in all conditions get a similar-looking pill, for
instance.
All this stuff, as I said, is covered under research design, and a
researcher who knows her stuff will eliminate potential problems with a
good research design.
As for the hoax that Judy alludes to, while the gibberish Allan Sokal
made up was pretty funny, the most ridiculous parts of that article were
the excerpts that he quoted from actual postmodernist texts. The thing
that embarrassed the editors of the magazine was that they really
couldn't tell the difference between actual postmodernist gibberish and
the gibberish that was made up as a spoof.
kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST