--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > <snip> > > LOL. She showed, over and over again, that she hadn't even > > bothered to read the URLs I posted and then, rather than > > saying "well, I haven't had time yet," she instead left in > > a huff. > > She didn't leave in a huff. She went on vacation > (taking a batch of research material with her). >
Well her last response to me was rather defensive and indicated she wasn't going to pay any attention to anything I said because of how I was dealing with her. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/168485 1) Its pretty hard to miss the reference that its a refereed journal when the url is to the PDF file with the logo prominently displayed; 2) Its pretty hard to miss that it IS ":earthshattering" research (if valid) and that it is NOT EEG coherence research, because the first two lines of the study's abstract say that it is a study on the psychological correlates of enlightenment (earthshattering by definition in the context of meditation research) as a followup to previously published EEG research. 3) a study of that kind, by its nature, MUST "cherry-pick" the subjects. There's absolutely no other way to do it. To do otherwise would be like selecting experimental subjects off the street in the hopes that they were taking a specific, not-commonly used, drug. Instead, you cherry-pick your experimental subjects, and compare them to controls who hopefully are reasonably well-matched to the experimental subjects. So, her responses were silly, defensive, and showed she'd never read the study in the first place, even after quoting the URL back to me in her response: > http://www.brainresearchinstitute.org/research/ConcCog2004.pdf Lawson
