This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, "Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant?" Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe….
As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://www.ThePsychFiles.com <http://www.thepsychfiles.com/> Twitter: @mbritt --- 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=40276 or send a blank email to leave-40276-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
