You don't even have to find the primary source (although I did find the abstract) to know that David Brooks' comment that "Physical contact improves team performance" confuses correlation and causation. It was nice to see from the primary source abstract that the authors did not, in fact, make that mistake. From the abstract: "Additional analyses confirmed that touch predicted improved performance even after accounting for player status, preseason expectations, and early season performance. Moreover, coded cooperative behaviors between teammates explained the association between touch and team performance." So touch predicted improved performance (it didn't necessarily cause it) and cooperation was a likely third factor moderating the relationship between touch and performance.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 [email protected] http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." -----Original Message----- From: Mike Palij [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: re: [tips] More anti-social-science ... from the public. 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=todaysh >eadlines&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]<mailto:[email protected]> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=7046 or send a blank email to leave-7046-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-7046-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- 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=7051 or send a blank email to leave-7051-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
