And perhaps the bigger issue, notwithstanding academic arguments about experimental designs, is the notion of variability (that can be addressed with more-than-single-subject designs, of course). I can only assume that over the past week or month MANY individuals across the country have both gone off their meds AND have had fights with their respective significant others. If only 1 in 1,000 (and I'm probably being generous here) goes off and starts shooting others, what really is the predictive value of knowing anything about meds and fights. Hindsight, hindsight, hindsight bias resulting from some availability heuristic.
On Feb 19, 2008, at 11:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> >> No. >> Environmental conditions may still vary between baseline and >> treatment. >> In this case, he might have both gone off medication and had a fight >> with his girlfriend: confounding variables. >> -- >> The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that >> people believe in it. >> >> * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >> * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * >> * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * >> * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * >> > > The issue here is whether the fight was a consequence of the absence > of the medication.The fight might not have been an isolated and > independent factor. > > Michael Sylvester,PhD > Daytona Beach,Florida > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > ======================================================== Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 "Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
