--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <jpgillam@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- anon_couscous_ff wrote:
> > >
> > > On the surface -- it feels good. At a deeper level, it raises
> > > questions: can other judges offer prayer and bible study as an
> > > alternative. Or attandance in a stict muslim madras(sp)? Or as an
> > > apprentice in the Moonies' programs? Or attendance at a 12 part
> tantra
> > > sex seminar?* How about a year with Scientology?
> >
> > When those programs offer reams of data demonstrating their
> > efficacy, great. Let's put them to work.
> >
>
> Ah,but all TM data is suspect because it is, well, TM data.
>
> Never mind if many/most/all of the scientists working on the study
> don't practice TM. If its TM, its fake data, by definition.
Well, sort of, yes. I just read a novel, that perhaps ironically,
weaves a lot of scientific studies into the plot. ("State of Fear" --
Michael Critcheon). One set of studies, that I have vaguely seen over
the year -- along with the great cognitive science stuff that
periodically comes out -- was on expectations and bias in polling and
scientific studies. He cited a number of studies along the lines of
sending two genitically identical sets of mice to two sets of labs,
where one lab was told (falsely) that the mice were bred specially for
intelligence and they were 70% above the norm. The other lab was told
the inverse aka stupid mice. Each lab provided results parallel to the
expectations. Same with polling -- each poller READS the same quesions
from a card, but one set of pllsters are told people on average answer
yes 70% of the time. Other set of pollers are told that people
generaly answerno 70% of the time. The poll results from all poltsers
correllated closely with the "expectations". Lotsof similar studies.
It does not require ill intentions. But subtle cues of expectations
can highly drive and distort results of studies. Why may not be fully
clear. But there is a mountain of evidence along these lines. Thus the
move towards double blind studies -- where the subjects AND the
reserchers don't know who got the real drug and who got the placebo.
I'm sorry, but ANY MUM study is suspect due to this "exectations"
pehenomenon. It doesn't mean David OJ, Skip A, Arick A, or Fred T.. or
whoever are evil or ill-intentioned, but they live and work and
breath in a HIGH expectations environment. The epectations effect is
real. I personally don't trust a shred of their resseach. Show me some
good old time TOTAL independent research. By people not connected the
TMO, who are not new-agey and have no great love of meditation and
things mystical. I want to see research by Dennis Hopper -- with a Phd.
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/
