--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > If the DC crime rate was > > > > relatively flat during the 90s, maybe that's an ok methodology. But > > > > metro cities throughout the nation experienced a dramatic drop in > > > > crime rate starting around 1992-1993 and continuing for several yrs > > > > and therefore the study can't prove its point w/o controlling for > > > > this major factor. > > > > > > They did, by "predicting" what the crime rate *would* have > > > been for that period that year on the basis of the previous > > > five-year trend. It's true that there might have been > > > *somewhat* less of a reduction if the crime rate had started > > > going down in early 1993, but you would have no reason to > > > see the sharp, sudden drop they measured during the project > > > on the basis of the decline you're talking about (much less > > > the return to "normal" a few weeks after the study). > > The 5 yr trend is meaningless - the trend for violent crime was > significantly up during the 80s and then it unexpectedly and > dramatically turned down in the 90s, then flattened out near the end > of that decade. All sorts of studies came out in the 90s supposedly > proving that this or that particular program was reducing crime in > this or that city, but in retrospect we now know that crime was > going down in all large cities, even ones not doing this or that.
Wow. You're still not getting it, and I'm not sure how to clear it up for you. Maybe you could just try reading what I wrote above a little more carefully. Everything you just said is utterly irrelevant in the case of this study. If the crime rate were trending down over those five years, or just the last two of those years, it would be reflected in the "prediction" of what the crime rate *would have been* if the project hadn't been conducted during those eight weeks. I could draw you a picture... Imagine a black line descending from left to right, at the rate that crime was declining since, say, 1991 or '92, whenever the decline started. The last segment of that line represents the duration of the eight-week project (actually let's say 12 weeks to include the post- project period). The black line shows what the crime rate would have been expected to be had there been no project; it continues the decline that you've been talking about. Now imagine a red line superimposed over that segment representing the *actual* crime rate for that period. It dips down sharply *below* the black line starting at the beginning of the 12-week period, then comes back up again to meet the black line at the end of it. Of course, you can't be *sure* about the black segment; it's an extrapolation from the previous trend. But you certainly wouldn't expect that it would take that sharp dip just for the 12-week period. > I'm saying the study design needs to be revisited due to what we now > know about the unique crime trends in the 90s. Nope, not for an eight-week World Peace Assembly. As far as the sharp > dramatic drops and returns to normal, I want to see the actual data > before trusting these describtors of it. Now, *that's* entirely reasonable. (The data itself is public; what you want to see is how they set up the time- series analysis and what the results were.) > OF course, akasha is right that even if the statistics hold, you > still need more studies looking at it from different angles. Of course. > I dont' see that ever happening. Right, it's not gonna happen. I was on the DC committee that originally came > up with the DC course idea a couple yrs before 93 at which time MMY > trashed it saying the M-effect had already been proven enough. For > some reason he consented when hagelin revived the idea in 93, but I > don't see him agreeing again and I can't see the tmo ever getting > nearly enough people to participate in such an experiment. I think MMY is probably quite right. Even if there were a Maharishi Effect, I don't think you could ever demonstrate it convincingly no matter *how* many studies you did. Just too many variables. Waste of time and money and effort. > So what's going to be the practical result of all these half or 3/4 > baked M-effect studies? Basically nothing (except that some of them are a little better-cooked than you think). But they're pretty interesting to discuss. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
