The key I think is replication and more skeptical and cautious reviews of the studies. I also have started to discuss differences between what Psych profs teach; correlation isn't causation, beware overgeneralization, the importance of replication, stat significance doesn't mean practical worth or importance, and how they violate these in their published research or public statements. Students enjoy pointing out to me how psych authors routinely describe findings as "significant" and imply more than statistical relevance to this word when discussing their findings. Just need more humility in research? However, the trends or opportunity for public marketing of our images, research, and products would seem to be inherently opposed to such scientific humility. Not an uncommon or new tension for scholar/professional paths.
G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU > On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Michael Britt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > 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=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=40276 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-40276-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@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=40277 or send a blank email to leave-40277-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
