Remember not too long ago when Chris Green posted this? "According to a forthcoming article in Perspectives on Psychological Science [that's Vul et al, 2009--SB], a lot of "social neuroscience" research contains impossibly high correlations between measures of brain activation obtained using fMRI, on the one hand, and behavioral or self- report measures on the other."
It gets worse. Really, it does. See http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090429/full/4581087a.html and also see Sharon Begley on both: http://www.newsweek.com/id/182570 http://tinyurl.com/co986x The Nature news item I cite above calls the two criticisms "similar" but I believe they are in fact distinct. The Vul one seems to be about post- hoc selection of the best correlations, a kind of multiple testing error. The Kriegeskorte et al one seems to be about "double-dipping", or using the same data to first identify promising regions to look at, and then using the same data to find a difference. If anyone has a more precise description of the difference, please tell. In the meantime, Uttal's description of this field as the "new phrenology" looks increasingly apt. 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])
