I think it was a Type I vs. Type II error problem: which is worse, to see a threat where none exists (Type I) or to miss a threat that does exist (Type II)? Although making a lot of Type I errors has personal liberty issues, in the current climate many administrators feel better about increasing Type I errors if it means that there will be less (or no) Type II errors. If only there was some way to increase the power without changing the alpha level.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (479) 524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/academics/hss/faculty/rfroman.asp "Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." - Ulysses Everett McGill -----Original Message----- From: William Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:00 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] The world continues to be crazy - further update I beg to differ with Stephen Black's analysis of the yelling fire example. I was not the one yelling "fire" with my statement that it would be wrong to fear people who have stopped taking medication and/or have had violent thoughts (I being one of those people). The author of the anonymous letter calling my words "terrorist threats" was the one who rang the false alarm. Please, I would rather not argue this any more. I wrote what the point of my statement was in the statement itself. Bill Scott >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/03/08 9:34 AM >>> Bill Scott said: > It is interesting and perhaps ironic to consider the Oliver Wendall > Holmes opinion about the line over which free speech should be > restricted. We should not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded > theater when there is no fire. In my case, that is exactly what the > anonymous letter writer and the administrators here have been doing. Interesting point. That time-worn maxim also occurred to me in this case, but I see it differently. The problem for the audience when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theatre is to determine whether there really is a danger or whether it's merely a prank. If they can't tell and decide the danger is real when it's merely a prank, people could get hurt in the ensuing rampage. But if they decide it's merely a prank when there really is a fire, even more people could be injured. So it might be in Bill's case. He's made an ambiguous statement ("I responded to the news by thinking of a list of people I would blow away at my school in a similar way"). The administration has to decide whether the risk is real or harmless. So it's Bill who's crying "fire" and the administration the audience who must decide whether the threat is real. If this "fire" rule provides a justification for acceptable limits on free speech, it would mean that Bill does not have the free speech right to make an ambiguous statement, even merely to make a point or in jest, if that statement could possibly be interpreted as representing a real danger. For what it's worth, Wikipedia says that the case in which Holmes made his "fire" observation was later overturned. Instead, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it was ruled "that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day" [in the USA, of course]. As such incitement does not appear to be present in Bill's remark, it would seem that contrary to the "fire in a crowded theatre" principle, he would be allowed to make such a remark under the First Amendment of the US constitution. Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
