Re: [tips] behavioral theory in the public sphere
Hi, Gary. Psychology as a discipline includes some things that I would not call science. Thaler trained as an economist, but he is an experimentalist. He conducts true experiments using questionnaires and other methods. He also does quasiexperimental work. So I would consider him a behavioral scientist. He describes himself as falling between psychology and economics. Best, Stuart stuartvyse.com @stuartvyse <https://twitter.com/stuartvyse> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Gerald L. Peterson <peter...@svsu.edu> wrote: > > > Was the discipline you refer to here as behavioral science the field of > psychology? Or is it some new field? Thaler was an economist? He seems to > be using psych principles, but is his work best understood as Psych or > applications therefrom? > > > Gerald (Gary)Peterson,Ph.D. > > Psychology@SVSU > > > -- > *From:* Jim Clark <j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca> > *Sent:* Monday, October 9, 2017 6:51 PM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* RE: [tips] behavioral theory in the public sphere > > > > > Hi > > > > Is there any evidence for the efficacy of this approach? There are > examples of interventions derived from theory that did not have the > intended consequences and in some cases had the opposite effect. For > example, if names were not published might a copy-cat reason that if only I > kill more people, then they will have to name me. > > > > I agree with Stuart’s general point about applying behavioral science and > was pleased to see the discipline recognized by a Nobel award. > > > > Take care > > Jim > > > > Jim Clark > > Professor of Psychology > > University of Winnipeg > > 204-786-9757 <(204)%20786-9757> > > Room 4L41A (4th Floor Lockhart) > > www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.uwinnipeg.ca%2F~clark=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7Cdc7fcb9c47d14336a7ac08d50f685dcd%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636431863292047911=K3%2FSnHc3rgOi5pd%2Bkx97ev0GTP7XnVAbm14wndKW1pY%3D=0> > > > > > > *From:* Stuart Vyse [mailto:vyse.stu...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* October-09-17 5:44 PM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* [tips] behavioral theory in the public sphere > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > On a day when behavioral science won a Nobel Prize, I write to point out > another instance of behavioral theory in the public sphere. > > > > In the wake of the latest horrible mass shooting, 147 "scholars, > professors, and law enforcement professionals" signed an open letter urging > the media not to name or show pictures of this or similar perpetrators. I > have not seen any media coverage of this letter, but the link to it is > below. > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Z7VkWcwLk-SjFJc00tdmI1eW8/view > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F0B4Z7VkWcwLk-SjFJc00tdmI1eW8%2Fview=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7Cdc7fcb9c47d14336a7ac08d50f685dcd%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636431863292047911=tJ7jj4Lve3NegEAl877%2FM7wFm5bl9iGbPfFzfxd8hAA%3D=0> > > > > It is interesting to note, that in this very serious context, these > professionals are recommending a behavioral intervention based on the > elimination of reinforcement for these acts. In my own view, the > recommendations do not go far enough, but they are very clearly derived > from behavioral theory, not neuroscience or cognitive psychology. > > > > Finally, this is not my area of expertise. There may be signers to this > letter who are members of our tribe, but none of the names jumped out at > me. Indeed, at least one of the signers has been a fairly vocal critic of > behavior analysis in other contexts. So I see this as a quiet victory for > us, perhaps one that the signers have failed to recognize, but a victory > nonetheless. Furthermore, it comes in relation to a very serious social > problem. > > > > Best, > > > > SV > > > > stuartvyse.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstuartvyse.com=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7Cdc7fcb9c47d14336a7ac08d50f685dcd%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636431863292047911=EaWWmROIiuaBARumyv67nT8Cw1exujXWiYbDCX0WgkQ%3D=0> > > @stuartvyse > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fstuartvyse=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7Cdc7fcb9c47d14336a7ac08d50f685dcd%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636431863292047911=5bM9%2BS5ys27FabnVSGcuEhKfy8fRQvNbWtgmceu%2BKGk%3D=0> > &g
Re: [tips] behavioral theory in the public sphere
Hi, Jim. Very reasonable question. Again, this is not my area, but there is some evidence to support the opposite effect. Media coverage increases the lethality of future events and that it leads to contagion effects. True experiments are, of course, not possible, but below is a review article that was, I believe, one of the inspirations for the open letter. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217730854#articleShareContainer Finally, as some of you will realize, I meant to send the previous message to a different list. I apologize for my mistake. Best, SV stuartvyse.com @stuartvyse <https://twitter.com/stuartvyse> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Jim Clark <j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Is there any evidence for the efficacy of this approach? There are > examples of interventions derived from theory that did not have the > intended consequences and in some cases had the opposite effect. For > example, if names were not published might a copy-cat reason that if only I > kill more people, then they will have to name me. > > > > I agree with Stuart’s general point about applying behavioral science and > was pleased to see the discipline recognized by a Nobel award. > > > > Take care > > Jim > > > > Jim Clark > > Professor of Psychology > > University of Winnipeg > > 204-786-9757 <(204)%20786-9757> > > Room 4L41A (4th Floor Lockhart) > > www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark > > > > > > *From:* Stuart Vyse [mailto:vyse.stu...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* October-09-17 5:44 PM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* [tips] behavioral theory in the public sphere > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > On a day when behavioral science won a Nobel Prize, I write to point out > another instance of behavioral theory in the public sphere. > > > > In the wake of the latest horrible mass shooting, 147 "scholars, > professors, and law enforcement professionals" signed an open letter urging > the media not to name or show pictures of this or similar perpetrators. I > have not seen any media coverage of this letter, but the link to it is > below. > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Z7VkWcwLk-SjFJc00tdmI1eW8/view > > > > It is interesting to note, that in this very serious context, these > professionals are recommending a behavioral intervention based on the > elimination of reinforcement for these acts. In my own view, the > recommendations do not go far enough, but they are very clearly derived > from behavioral theory, not neuroscience or cognitive psychology. > > > > Finally, this is not my area of expertise. There may be signers to this > letter who are members of our tribe, but none of the names jumped out at > me. Indeed, at least one of the signers has been a fairly vocal critic of > behavior analysis in other contexts. So I see this as a quiet victory for > us, perhaps one that the signers have failed to recognize, but a victory > nonetheless. Furthermore, it comes in relation to a very serious social > problem. > > > > Best, > > > > SV > > > > stuartvyse.com > > @stuartvyse <https://twitter.com/stuartvyse> > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=3229968. > 90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91291=T=tips=51527 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51527-3229968. > 90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: vyse.stu...@gmail.com. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=1826268. > 276099a4bdfac6e36730202b8c56c58f=T=tips=51528 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51528-1826268. > 276099a4bdfac6e36730202b8c56c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=51529 or send a blank email to leave-51529-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] H.M. Book Reviewed in the NY Times
Sorry. Trying again. I've read the book itself, as well as several reviews and various documents about the controversy. All in preparation for writing a short piece for Skeptical Inquirer about the controversy spurred by the publication of an excerpt in the NY Times. As far as the book is concerned, I strongly recommend it. It is very well written, and, although it has a number of flaws, Dittrich had access to many obscure sources. I learned a lot. 1. Yes, he should have footnoted. The book is a blend of memoir and serious biography. In many cases, the source is obvious because he engaged in first person interviews, but he also used various archives, newspapers, and journal articles. So he should have footnoted. 2. Dittrich's personal connection to the story was both a blessing and a curse. He was remarkably objective much of the time, but his obvious involvement in the story also affected his reporting. To me he seemed, at times, overly harsh in his treatment of both his grandfather and of Corkin. At other times, he was remarkably generous to both. In summary, you will have to judge the book yourself. But it is a compelling read and a substantial contribution to the public record. SV --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=49383 or send a blank email to leave-49383-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] H.M. Book Reviewed in the NY Times
I've read the book itself, as well as several reviews and various documents about the controversy. All in preparation for writing a short piece for Skeptical Inquirer about the controversy spurred by the publication of an excerpt in the NY Times. As far as the book is concerned, I strongly recommend it. It is very well written, and, although the book has a number of flaws, Dittrich had access to many obscure sources. I learned a lot. 1. Yes, he should have footnoted. The book is a blend of memoir and serious biography. In many cases, the source is obvious because he engaged in first person interviews, but he also used various archives, newspapers, and journal articles. So he should have footnoted. 2. Dittrich's personal connection to the story is both a blessing and a curse. He was remarkably objective much of the time, but his obvious connection to the story al -- stuartvyse.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=49382 or send a blank email to leave-49382-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] "Brain Training" to prevent dementia
Jeff, You may be interested in a column I wrote on this topic recently. Link below. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/neuro-pseudoscience/ In addition, there is a 2014 consensus statement on brain training that ends with these words: *In summary: We object to the claim that brain games offer consumers a scientifically grounded avenue to reduce or reverse cognitive decline when there is no compelling scientific evidence to date that they do. The promise of a magic bullet detracts from the best evidence to date, which is that cognitive health in old age reflects the long-term effects of healthy, engaged lifestyles. In the judgment of the signatories, exaggerated and misleading claims exploit the anxiety of older adults about impending cognitive decline. We encourage continued careful research and validation in this field.* http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the-consensus-on-the-brain-training-industry-from-the-scientific-community-2/ SV On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. < jeff.ric...@scottsdalecc.edu> wrote: > Yesterday, I read a Mind Hacks post by Tom Stafford on ‘Brain Training’ > titled “A gold-standard study on brain training” ( > http://mindhacks.com/2015/11/05/a-gold-standard-study-on-brain-training/). > My students sometimes ask about ‘brain training’, so I read the post and > then ordered and downloaded the research article by Corbett, Owen, > Hampshire, et al. (2015) it discussed. > > The research question: can online cognitive training (CT) help to prevent > dementia and maintain cognitive functioning in adults >50 years of age? > > The procedures used to answer this question are, as you might suspect, > somewhat intricate. The protocol is online here: > http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/wolfson/about/people/staff/Protocol1.aspx > > I’ll provide a highly abridged version of the methods and discussion > because I want to focus on some troubling issues that the authors seemed to > minimize in their Discussion section. (Stafford’s blog post also provides a > brief summary and critique.) > > There were two treatment groups. Each received a different type of online > cognitive training (CT): > Reasoning CT: consisted of tasks such as “Select the ‘odd one out’ from 4 > shapes that varied in terms of color, shape, and solidity” (p. 3). > General CT: consisted of tasks involving memory, attention, math, etc. > > The “control group performed equivalent Internet-based tasks involving a > game in which people were asked to put a series of statements in correct > numerical order. Participants were invited to search the Internet to find > the correct answers. Number of completed sessions per participant was > recorded as an integrated feature in the online platform” (p. 991). > > They used a randomized, double-blind design and observed the participants > for six months. At the beginning, there were 6742 participants: 3830 were > 51-60 years and 2912 were >60 years > > The primary outcome measure was self-reported “instrumental activities of > daily living” (IADL) in those ≥61 years (the IADL scale used is here: > https://www.abramsoncenter.org/media/1197/instrumental-activities-of-daily-living.pdf). > Other measures of cognitive functioning were used as secondary outcome > measures in all participants. > > Their discussion of the results seemed to paint a glowing picture of the > effectiveness of online CT: > * “the data clearly demonstrate a significant benefit to activities of > daily living in a group of adults older than 60 receiving both the online > GCT and ReaCT interventions compared with control” (p. 994) > * “These findings are novel and extremely valuable since it is known to be > difficult to elicit change in IADLs, particularly in a cognitively healthy > group. This impact on IADLs therefore indicates the potential for this > approach as an effective public health intervention that could improve this > key measure of independence and quality of life in older adults.” (p. 994) > * “Analysis of other cognitive outcomes in adults older than 50 also shows > a considerable generalizable impact on cognition, with substantial benefits > to reasoning and [verbal learning]L in both active CT groups at 6 months, > and more modest benefits in [spatial working memory]” (p. 994) > > Etc., etc. > > There are several troubling issues with this study. I’ll mention two: > (1) They “recommended” that participants train “for 10 minutes daily, > although flexibility was allowed” (p. 991). Given that there was no direct > contact with participants, there was no way for them to carefully check on > and effectively encourage compliance. > (2) They started out with almost 7000 participants; but by the end of the > study lost most of them: > Reasoning CT > START END LOST > 51-60 2557595 76.7% > >60 1023268 73.8% > General CT > 51-60 2432428 82.4% > >60 1096243 78.8% >
