--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROTOCOL. > > They were not any part of the protocol that was made > public, nor any part of the discussion and planning > by the independent review board that was made public. > I got on the mailing list for everything that was > released about the study from its early stages, and > there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it.
I was getting stuff from MIU faculty well before the study was publicly announced and it WAS part of theprotocol. > > > 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), > > Yes, it was 20 percent. > > 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. > > Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed > a very significant reduction from the rate the previous > year for that period, considerably more than would have > been expected from the overall crime trend. I don't know that "very" significant was the appropriate term. At the least, the rawdata was in the predicted data. > > What's more, that reduction occurred only during the > demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward. > Then it went right back up. > > One of the problems the researchers encountered was > obtaining the crime data in the way they had > originally anticipated. They had apparently been > told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure > which) that they would get it in a certain form, > broken down into certain categories, and they > constructed their methodology around that understanding. > > Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't > clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to > do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with > the form in which they *did* get the data. Plus which, > there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of > the data. > > I don't remember the details, just the general outline. > Some of this may be described in the study itself. > ------------------------ 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/
