--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 2006, at 2:26 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This is called PR science. It is a pile of shit and > > > > any serious scientist knows it. I'd love to see them > > > > try to publish this "research". What a joke. It is an > > > > insult to MMY and this tradition. > > > > > > Eh, it is PR, but then again ALL research done at MUM is PR. > > > > > > OTOH, what if hagelin's predictions hold up, at least somewhat? > > > > They most likely WILL, but when the TMO is concerned numbers > > almost always lie. > > To be more charitable, I doubt that many, if any, of > the researchers or the PR blurbers think that they're > actually lying. They just have so much invested in > the world view that was sold to them by Maharishi > that they filter out anything from their perceptions > (and their research) that doesn't match that world > view. The world view is *by definition* correct, > because of the highest law of nature, which is > "Maharishi sez." Therefore if the facts don't seem > to agree, there must be something wrong with the facts, > and they should be ignored as the anomalies they are. >
Two points: 1) the claims about S&P500 "advanced econometric model results" etc. simply don't meet the most basic of eyeball tests -- which is an essential part of all econometric analysis. A researcher needs to carefully look at the data -- and all the supporting slices and dices of it that econometric and statistical software provides. Since Oct 2002 when SP500 hit its low after internet bubble slide, the that been 2-4 upward reversals of the approximate magnitude of the current one. (2 perhaps larger, 2 a bit smaller). In prior PR the researcher, Ken Cavanaugh, made claims of the current reversal being a very rare event -- something like 3/100,000. Thats total crap. Simply look at the data -- it happens about once a year. 2) Tweaking sophisticated models allows one to produce analysis results that allow highly qualified (aka limited, "spun" ) statements, with wiggle room, that imply something (the point a researcher wants to make) but do not, in reality demonstrate such. The above four similar reversals in four years is a good example. One can set up and specify the analysis to show the current event to be unlike any other -- but on parameters that are essentially unimportant or meaningless to the point being made. As a former analysis and researcher in a large corporation using sophisticated statistical, econometric and simulation software, with such analysis having a lot depending on it (being used by top management, and as part of supporting the corporate case in regulatory proceedings and customer proposals), I know from experience that when one has 100 variations or results to provide, it is simply part of (any and all) corporate cultures to provide the best "defensible" results. One one simply does not provide all results and drone on and on about "on the other hand" -- (which would give a clearer view of the true picture and associated uncertainties and limits of the analysis.) (Partly because the further complex analysis goes up the food chain, the more "cartoon" like it must become.) My sense from my TMO experience and observations is that the (often quite subtle, and often self-based) pressure to provide such "best defensible" results is even stronger. Ken I am sure is getting lots of pats on the head, a few minutes of glory, for his results. And would be looked at with "that look" and displeasure if he produced a comprehensive and unbiased set of conclusions. Or simply looked at the data and said "these rare events findings are clearly anomolies and due to unjustified model tweaks, because 'look' -- anyone eyeballing the raw data can see it does not support these model results." On the other hand, the IA course does coincide with the exact low point of a major reversal -- something that only occurs about once a year. That is an "interesting", "hmmmm, chin scratching result". And if the SP500 goes up another 10-15% in the next few months, it will be a "rare event" -- and something to crow about. Or, if SP500 goes into a long sustained 2-5 year aggresive rally -- more likely the results of ME -- IMO -- since reasonable theroy would indicate some lag period between intervention and full effect. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
