Re:[tips] H.M. Book Reviewed in the NY Times

[Stuart Vyse]

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

[Stuart Vyse]

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] NYT: Letter of Recommendation: The Useless Machine

[Carol]

Sigh...I now have a Useless Machine ordered. I'm sure that says something about 
me.

I think the professor who said "X took a course or two with me and he did well 
in them," was too gutless to tell the student to find someone who could write a 
stronger letter, though I know it becomes difficult to be memorable at a big 
school. When I was a TA at a large university a student asked if I could write 
her a rec letter--I told her it wouldn't carry enough weight. Another student 
asked if I thought a certain professor, who had retired, would write her a rec 
letter and should she send her a picture of herself so she would remember her. 
What do students do when they are one of hundreds?

cd




> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:
> 
> First, let me make something clear:  the NY Times Sunday
> magazine has a column titled "Letter of Recommendation".
> 
> Second, when I first saw the title "Letter of Recommendation:
> The Useless Machine" in a different context, I thought "that
> must be about how most letters of reference are written by
> people who have too little experience with a person to write
> meaningfully about them (e.g., a professor who has a student
> for only one lecture course)".
> 
> Third, when I read the article I realized that my first response
> was wrong and that the article was more informative than I had
> anticipated, covering such topics as transhumanism, Claude
> Shannon, Marvin Minksy, and, of course, the infamous "Useless
> Machine" that is an actual device (Minsky conceived it,
> Shannon built it).  For more on these and additional topics
> see:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/magazine/letter-of-recommendation-the-useless-machine.html
> 
> Fourth, back in the 1990s in the NYU Arts & Science psych
> dept, the experimental program had little computer lab with
> Sun Unix workstations and a public laser printer (faculty and
> staff could send files to be printed either from the lab or the
> computer in their office).  One day I had sent something to
> be printed and went to the lab and it appeared that it had
> printed my file in a very short amount of time (my office was
> close by).  I picked up the putout which was facedown and
> saw that it was a short letter of reference written for a recent
> Ph.D. I knew by one of our more famous faculty members
> (psroff allowed one to generate letterhead).  I probably shouldn't
> have read it but because I knew both people and it was so
> short, I did read it.  As a letter of reference for a job, it was
> extremely short and, if memory serves, it essentially said
> the following:
> 
> "X took a course or two with me and he did well in them".
> 
> That was it.  I thought it might have been a joke but on second
> thought, given who had written it, they were probably completely
> serious about it.  I didn't know if the person who asked for
> the letter knew that this was the letter that would be sent to
> the academic jobs he was applying for and wondered whether
> I should say something to him. I decided not to.  The letter
> notwithstanding, he got an academic position and I was happy
> that he did (maybe the place didn't get this letter or did and
> decided to drop it from consideration).  This is what I was
> reminded of when I saw "Letter of Recommendation: The
> Useless Machine" because that LoR really was useless,
> no matter how well known the author might have been.
> 
> -Mike Palij
> New York University
> m...@nyu.edu
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: devoldercar...@gmail.com.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=177920.a45340211ac7929163a021623341=T=tips=49359
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-49359-177920.a45340211ac7929163a021623...@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=49381
or send a blank email to 
leave-49381-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Significant - or Really, Really Significant?

[Jim Clark]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the lower p is "better"  all other 
things being the same, which they rarely are.  Sample size, for example, 
affects the p value for a given size effect. So does the variability (noise) in 
the data, which can vary as a function of homogeneity of subjects or treatment 
conditions, again independent of effect size.

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:25 PM, "Michael Britt"  wrote:
> 
> Someone was talking to me today about some research in parapsychology that 
> was “highly significant” and “to the .0001 level!”
> 
> Can anyone explain why significance levels like this aren’t “better” than 
> something like .04?  I don’t think I explained it well to him.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> Michael A. Britt, Ph.D.
> http://www.ThePsychFiles.com
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/thepsychfiles/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/mbritt
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9=T=tips=49377
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-49377-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@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=49379
or send a blank email to 
leave-49379-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] H.M. Book Reviewed in the NY Times

[Claudia Stanny]

I've been reading the reviews with much interest. As a cognitive
psychologist, I have followed the many publications based on H.M. over the
years (and stayed up half the night to watch the live streaming of the
sectioning for the Brain Observatory analysis).

My first concern about the book was based on the assertion that the
additional damage to H.M.'s brain was covered up. I clearly remembered the
reports immediately following the Brain Observatory work, which reported
this damage.

The author's personal connection to the surgeon also raised concerns about
his objectivity in the case (even if he is not particularly kind to his
grandfather). However, many historians warn against making judgments about
historical decisions from a contemporary context. (Milgram's work does not
fare well from this type of analysis. Nor do many other psychological
research projects.) Hindsight gives us the wisdom to adopt a moral high
ground that might not have been so obvious in 1950. As I recall, the case
analysis of H.M. indicated he was experiencing 2 or 3 major and/or minor
seizures a week and they were not responsive to treatments available at
that time. If you know anyone who experiences major epileptic seizures, you
will be aware of how debilitating these are. As a graduate student, I knew
a student in another discipline who began to have difficulty controlling
his condition. He was exhausted and had short-term memory problems for days
after a major episode.

Yes, Corkin was protective and limited access of other researchers to H.M.
Although I sympathized with researchers who might have liked to do their
own research with H.M., I can also imagine the circus that might have
ensued if people had had unfettered access to a vulnerable man. Again,
thinking as a historian, when did we begin to demand informed consent from
the legal guardian of a person who is unable to give informed consent - for
memory research (not medical research). As a memory researcher, informed
consent was unheard of as an expectation until the late 1970s. I recall
that transition because it happened between data collection for my master's
and data collection for my dissertation.

This new book has been getting plenty of attention in the media. Some of it
is pretty sensational. No doubt the author will make a pile of dough from
his use of H.M.'s story. Seems a bit self-serving. I'm not sure I want to
cooperate with that game.

Yes, the book raises interesting issues about the conduct of research on
vulnerable populations. I find it interesting that it appears after Dr.
Corkin is no longer able to speak in her own defense. The Mnookin review
reinforces my thinking.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this list.

Best,
Claudia



_

Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.
Director
Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
BLDG 53 Suite 201
University of West Florida
Pensacola, FL  32514

Phone:   (850) 857-6355 (direct) or  473-7435 (CUTLA)

csta...@uwf.edu

CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/offices/cutla/ 


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. <
jeff.ric...@scottsdalecc.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:
>
> One of the surprising statement that Mnookin makes is that
> Dittrich does not provide notes or references for points made
> in the books (as well as some factual errors).
>
>
> I had read a few articles about the book,and had planned to buy it until I
> read the following in the review:
>
> “This deeply reported, 400-page book, which aims to reframe one of the
> best-known medical case studies of the 20th century, is devoid of either
> source notes or a bibliography.”
>
> Because of this omission, if I do decide to buy the book. it will be
> included in my collection of “on-top-of-the-toilet-tank” books.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
> --
> 
> -
> Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology
> 
> -
> Social/Behavioral Sciences
> Scottsdale Community College
> 9000 E. Chaparral Road
> Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
> Office: SB-123
> Fax: (480) 423-6298
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: csta...@uwf.edu.
>
> To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13144.
> 1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d550=T=tips=49376
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to leave-49376-13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d5
> 5...@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=49378
or send a blank email to 
leave-49378-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Significant - or Really, Really Significant?

[Michael Britt]

Someone was talking to me today about some research in parapsychology that was 
“highly significant” and “to the .0001 level!”

Can anyone explain why significance levels like this aren’t “better” than 
something like .04?  I don’t think I explained it well to him.


Michael

Michael A. Britt, Ph.D.
http://www.ThePsychFiles.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/thepsychfiles/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/mbritt


---
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=49377
or send a blank email to 
leave-49377-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] H.M. Book Reviewed in the NY Times

[Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D.]

On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:

> One of the surprising statement that Mnookin makes is that
> Dittrich does not provide notes or references for points made
> in the books (as well as some factual errors).

I had read a few articles about the book,and had planned to buy it until I read 
the following in the review:

“This deeply reported, 400-page book, which aims to reframe one of the 
best-known medical case studies of the 20th century, is devoid of either source 
notes or a bibliography.”

Because of this omission, if I do decide to buy the book. it will be included 
in my collection of “on-top-of-the-toilet-tank” books.

Best,
Jeff

-- 
-
Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
-
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Scottsdale Community College
9000 E. Chaparral Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
Office: SB-123
Fax: (480) 423-6298





---
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=49376
or send a blank email to 
leave-49376-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu