"authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a > position even to guess at flaws in the study or to > say the results didn't reflect the reality unless he > knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers > used. He has to be able to see the published study > before he can make a relevant evaluation.
The summary appears quite clear -- they did not use the control variables in the primary analysis. I don't need to read the full study, which I seek to, to raise concerns about that and other things stated in the summary. And I can speculate as to the data issues they faced, having climbed that hill many times in various analysis projects, and why they did what they did (as outlined in the summary). Speculation is not exactly a searing critique. On the same token, I suppose its hard for you to defend the study without having it at hand. (Just curious, did you read the full study in the past? But no longer have a copy?) > I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own > method, run all the numbers, get different results, > and on that basis, without knowing what methodology > they were using, say there was something wrong with > their results. I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional methods for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did not suddenly invent regression for this analysis. Second, who knows if I will get the same or a different result than them. Its a work in progress. I shared some preliminary exploratory results, based on a surprising strong little initial model. As I get better data, I will undoubtedly be able to develop better models. Third, I am approaching the analysis from different angles, more angles perhaps, than they did. Thats a good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes, using a unified model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am not using my analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study. I am doing it to understand the ME and verify or reject it based on the actual numbers. For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than some analysis done 12 years ago in which the data used is not apparently readily available, nor 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/
