On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:41:19 -0800, Jim Clark wrote: >Hi >A NYTimes article summarizing some interesting behavioral >science phenomena at > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212 > >provoked a substantial number of depressingly negative comments. >Perhaps they are former students of Michael Smith's?
You forgot to quote the best line in David Brooks article: |A day without social science is like a day without sunshine. For people looking for a does of sunshine, consider David Brook's source; http://www.nationalaffairs.com/blog/blogger/findings-a-daily-roundup Regarding the content of the comments: few seem to appreciate that to understand the studies that David Brooks refers to, they actually need to read the studies, that is, rely upon primary sources and not one a person's interpretation (biased or unbiased) of the study. Brooks identified the authors and the journals, so it is just a matter of locating the sources. But I have the feeling that most people would like to shoot off their mouths before knowing what they are actually talking about (i.e., identify their sources and show that what they are saying is supported by their sources in a meaningful and accurate manner). -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7046 or send a blank email to leave-7046-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
