--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > For example, in another post akasha complains that > > > only violent crime statistics were studied > > > > Not a complaint, just an observation. > > > > > < and > > > expresses suspicion that the researchers left out > > > statistics on nonviolent crime because they didn't > > > demonstrate any effect. > > > > Yes, thats not a high crime on their part. If they found non violent > > crimes went down dramatically, I am confident the summary of the > > study would highlight non-violent crimes. Don't you? > > They wouldn't have found that nonviolent crimes went > down dramatically because they weren't looking at > nonviolent crime statistics because the study was on > violent crime only.
Eh, I'm with akasha on this one. They would have at least mentioned it if it supported the ME theory,even if it wasn't part of the original design. > > <duh> > > Really? Thats how > > analysis under pressure works. Its what happens in the real world. > > People make their best case. Not a high crime. But one needs to be > > aware that the researchers here, as in many other places, had > > incentives to look for answers that met sponsors desires and > > expecatations. > > For God's sake, they *predicted* that violent > crime would drop by 20 percent when they announced > the demonstration project. This is the TMO, > remember? TM True Believer researchers. They > weren't trying to please sponsors, they were out to > confirm their own convictions. > > > No different from 1000's of corporate analysts. And > > 100's of non-profit foundation analysts. But maybe you have to have > > "been there" in various situations and cases to understand this. > > It isn't a matter of *understanding* it, it's a > GIVEN. Good *grief*, akasha. You're just not > paying attention. > > They announced, with great fanfare, that the project > would demonstrate a 20 percent drop in violent crime. > They announced the protocol of the study that was > going to prove it beforehand. > > Can you *imagine* the horselaughs if they'd turned > around and used nonviolent crime because the stats > were better? Get real! > > They never even considered looking at nonviolent > crime. That isn't what they were out to prove. > But they WOULD have mentioned it if the stats had warranted it. ------------------------ 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/
