--- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > LB, (or anyone familiar with the study) > > > > Per your prior note, > > > > What was added in the 25% second round of analysis, relative to the > > first round, the 17% results? Was it the weather variables or Index? > > > > Or was weather included in the first round of analysis? If weather > > was in the first round. what was added in the second round. > > > > When where the other control variables, other crime factors such as > > police on the street, police practices, LE funding, etc introduced? > > ******** > > Clearing up a minor point on my own initial "lowball" estimate of 17%: > > PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROTOCOL. They had been bought and paid > for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was not as powerful as the > group that had originally been anticipated. > > After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction (might have been 20% > come to think of it), there was an ongoing effort of several months to make the data fit. > My graduate student friend Mark ______ (last name still not remembered) was a part of > this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped into him I would ask, > "Seen any good statistics lately?" Then he would give me an informal update. Let me be > clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was completely sold on the > program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data would reveal the results. > I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of. > > Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the time, only the impressions > remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort to "rectify" the findings > based on their original model. I do not remember a single alteration or adjustment, but > something more like a scavenger hunt. > > It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the details. If anything is revealed > here, it is that the "demonstration" demonstrated nothing. Except, perhaps, to the > participants. > > Personally, I thought the course was a great experience. I doubt if anyone outside the > course even remembers it. Certainly it is not being cited in all the journals as a profound > feat of engineering in the domain of collective consciousness. Needless to say, this is a > typical cult phenomenon—the insiders believing that their every breath shakes the world, > the outsiders not even noticing.
This is a valid point, but there are plenty of examples in the scientific community of a study or even a mathematical technique being ignored for years, decades (or even a century in the case of the math) that later on are seen as ground-breaking. ------------------------ 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/
