wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Kill your television - get an insurance discount? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Kill your television - get an insurance discount?" Watch "Kill your television - get an insurance discount?" New topic
Author

Kill your television - get an insurance discount?

Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
I'd rather judge the studies on their own merits, and not the political leaning I imagine the organization might have: besides, by and large, I tend to believe public institutions over corporate one.

While it's important to figure in all variables, it's also important to be honest about facts that might not favor our own opinions on the way things should be.

M


Java Regular Expressions
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
While it's important to figure in all variables, it's also important to be honest about facts that might not favor our own opinions on the way things should be.

Which is exactly the problem. The supporters are not looking at the studies with an open mind to see how horribly flawed they are. The studies agree with their preconceptions and therefore they must be accurate.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
While it's important to figure in all variables, it's also important to be honest about facts that might not favor our own opinions on the way things should be.

Which is exactly the problem. The supporters are not looking at the studies with an open mind to see how horribly flawed they are. The studies agree with their preconceptions and therefore they must be accurate.


I don't think this sort of phenomena are limited only to those people who support studies. I'm always learning new facts, ideas, and information that challenge my preconceived notions of the world. I think that the key to success is embracing them, as using it as a opportunity to grow. especially on the web, where the only threat is that someone, somewhere, is blowing a gasket because they're really, really, really mad at me.

So far, I'm not aware of a single valid argument debunking this study. I've heard lots of pejoratives, hyperbole, and some ad hominum attacks(on both sides), but nothing about the study. What I'd really like to know is if it's a reproducible experiment.

Bert, we never did get to my original question: what if the study's valid? What should we do about it? I can't come up with any answers there.

M
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8829
    
    5
First off:

Max - A simple idea would be to require broadcasters to air PSAs warning of the danger ("This is your brain on TV" kinds of things).

But really, in addition to that... I don't know, but I'd like to figure something out.

Thomas -

Which is exactly the problem. The supporters are not looking at the studies with an open mind to see how horribly flawed they are.


So what I'm to gather fron your argument is that we should believe Fox news, but distrust the following organizations, believing instead that all of their studies are horribly flawed?

Stanford,
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Family Physicians
The Surgeon General
National Institute of Mental Health
American Medical Association
APA
Illinois Center for Violence Prevention
Univ. of California
Univ. of Texas
Univ. of Wisconsin
Univ. of North Carolina
George Washington University Medical school
Columbia University
Iowa State U.

All of which I've referenced earlier in this thread. (And this list just scratches the surface.)

So if all of these individuals and organizations are producing "junk science" on this topic... to what end? Are they all involved in a conspiracy? What would ALL of these institutions have to gain?


Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
...
So if all of these individuals and organizations are producing "junk science" on this topic... to what end? Are they all involved in a conspiracy? What would ALL of these institutions have to gain?


They would gain the wrath of "the Junkman" and thus put themselves on the other side of the argument from Phillip Morris, Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

I think this is a laudable ambition.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Thomas Paul:

In the US we still do. The "marriage tax" is being phased out betwen 2005 and 2009 although in 2011, the phase-out expires and the tax law goes back to the way it was.

Er, I got married in 2000, shortly before the tax law changes, and I do our taxes. I'm pretty sure we saw a change already.

Using a nifty web page at

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I find:

In 2000, the marginal Federal tax rate jumped from 15% to 28% (the biggest jump) at $26,250 for singles, and at $21,925 for married filing separately. That's a "marriage penalty" of 13% of $4325, or $562 or so. At higher bracket breakpoints, the penalty applied at broader and broader ranges of income, until the top bracket kicked in at $144,175 for married filing separately, versus $288,350 for singles (not that we were anywhere near that).

In 2004, the biggest jump is from 15% to 25%, at $29,050 for both singles and married filing separately, so there's no marriage penalty there. Ther marriage penalty doesn't start until the next tax bracket shift, from 25% to 28%, which occurs at $70,350 for singles and $58,625 for married filing separately. That's only a $352 penalty at a per person income of $70,350; the difference would have been $879 under the 2000 rate schedules.

In all cases the breakpoints for married filing jointly are double those for married filing separately, before and after the changes.

You may well be right that there's additional phaseout still to come, but given our income and deductions, it feels to us like the penalty has mostly been removed already. I think you're right about the expiration, but I'm still hoping the change will be made permanent in the intervening time.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Max Habibi:

I does seem that there is an antiintelliecual backlash against science and scientists these days. That is, it seems that criticism is being leveled at the political ramifications of scientific research, as opposed to actually research methodologies. As someone with a formal background in math and science, I'm pretty disappointed to see this.

I think the scientists, or at least academia, bear some of the responsibility.

Traditionally, the scientific establishment gained its credibility from restricting itself to what was logically and empirically demonstrable - providing us with the facts, but being very reluctant to extrapolate conclusions. Political extrapolation was left to politicians and the public.

It seems to me that, in the last decade or two, scientists have been more and more willing to extrapolate what you call "political ramifications", in my opinion often neglecting their empirical data gathering and analysis in the process. This erosion of scientific rigor and restraint led directly, in my opinion, to the erosion in credibility of the scientific establishment. I bemoan the result as much as you do, but my disappointment lies mostly with the scientists, rather than with the public.

Even Jeroen is willing to concede a correlation between television viewing and violence, which is the only conclusion clearly supported by the data. Bert's other links purporting to show causation are, with one exception, merely opinion pieces, and while scientists have a right to their opinions, being a scientist doesn't make one's opinions worth any more than that of other equally intelligent and well informed people. The one exception is the Illinois site, which provides at least some evidence for a causal link of some sort - though even in that case, the causal link that is demonstrated is only to the mode, rather than the amount, of violence.

I'd like to see the scientists and researchers refocus on objectively determining and demonstrating the facts. I think that if they did so, the rest of us would find those facts harder to ignore, and we'd be more likely to come up with solutions when the facts seemed to demonstrate a problem.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
I also found material that supports your argument too, whether it be true or not, I am completely amazed that England is comparable with the States. I live in London and the only safety worries I have are aggressive dog in the park maybe all the violent stuff happens after dark when the pubs close.


Same here. I also live in London, and generally feel fairly safe. As long as you stay fairly sensible then things are ok. I think what skews the crime figures a lot in the UK (especially in cities) is the after pub trouble. For some reason a large number of people find it necessary to drink too much poor quality beer and alchopops, eat a kebab, chunder all over the pavement and then get into a fight. Given that the average Briton is fairly quiet and polite most of the time, its kind of weird that come friday night people seem to devolve back to primitive-ape mode. Its probably only a small percentage of the population that causes problems, but they also probably do so every friday, pushing up the crime figures.

Its all a bit embarrassing. Years ago people in other countries had a generally favourable view of the British, but now we're more and more seen as lager-louts and thugs. Whenever I go to Greece to visit the almost-relatives I feel the need to apologise for what happens in Faliraki. That's another thing I don't get - why a large number of people feel the need to travel to such a beautiful country as Greece and then head straight away to an English-style pub and to eat fish and chips. Its horrible to see how many once nice Greek villages are being turned into Essex-at-the-Med by English holiday companies.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by peter wooster:


So you tell us what you know about the background and credentials of Steve Milloy. Or readers could just look here.


and they could look at http://www.junkscience.com and get the treehuggers' arguments debunked...

Like the man or not, but he is right in stating that there is a LOT of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo being passed off as hard data by lobby groups with a political agenda and that the press if all too eager to lap it all up.


42
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Telletubbies and these
are great for children (seems to strike a chord with the grand olds as well).

There's one missing from the list which has Bella and crew with Catchy sing-a-longs.

South Park and Simpsons may be the ruin of little kids. Horrible characters except for Lucy and Madge.

I can't imagine not growing up with Oliver Twist, Bambi, Sound of Music, etc etc.


Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
and they could look at http://www.junkscience.com and get the treehuggers' arguments debunked...

Like the man or not, but he is right in stating that there is a LOT of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo being passed off as hard data by lobby groups with a political agenda and that the press if all too eager to lap it all up.


You still have not told us what you know about the background and credentials of Steve Milloy, even though you regularly post links to his work. Please contribute positively to the discussion by sharing that information.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
So what I'm to gather fron your argument is that we should believe Fox news, but distrust the following organizations, believing instead that all of their studies are horribly flawed?
Two things,

First, I never told you to believe anyone. Try actually reading one of these studies with a scientific mindset instead of reading the news summaries. They are junk science.

Second, just because there are a lot of studies means nothing. This is the "if I throw a lot of shit on the wall, no one will notice it stinks" theory. I am sure the psychiatry departments of all these institutions do have an agenda whether it is looking for more funding or just trying to get published so they can get tenure. If you think otherwise then you don;t understand how things work in the soft science deaprtments of our major universities.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Er, I got married in 2000, shortly before the tax law changes, and I do our taxes. I'm pretty sure we saw a change already.


The marriage penalty was eliminated (mostly) for tax years 2003 amd 2004 by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. That expires however with the 2005 tax year. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 starts to phase out the marriage penalty with the 2005 tax year. This means that the marriage tax is back and will be phased out slowly until 2011 when it returns in full.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Max Habibi: by and large, I tend to believe public institutions over corporate one.


I tend to believe studies whose conclusions contradict the politics or desired beliefs of the people doing the study. Otherwise, I maintain my skepticism.

Corporate studies are only suspect when the sponsors have a direct financial interest in the acceptance of their conclusions. But I don't think that makes private news sources less reliable than public ones; generally, businessmen are whores and even if the politics of a news source is anti-capitalist, businessmen will finance it if they can make money doing so.

I tend to distrust public sources, such as the BBC or PBS. These organizations offer low-paying jobs to highly intelligent people who could earn much more money in business; these conditions tend to attract employees who have a strong desire to propagate eccentric political beliefs. These sources tend to have the greatest political bias.

The appeal of media jobs to highly political change-desiring (i.e. out of the mainstream) people is also true of private sector journalism. But the corporate sponsors' fear of alienating huge segments of the viewing public tends to have an anti-bias moderating effect.
[ November 30, 2004: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Gerald Davis: I live in London and the only safety worries I have are aggressive dog in the park maybe all the violent stuff happens after dark when the pubs close.

Joe King: I also live in London, and generally feel fairly safe. As long as you stay fairly sensible then things are ok. I think what skews the crime figures a lot in the UK (especially in cities) is the after pub trouble.
I think a great deal of the crime in England is in the countryside. Victim disarmament weighs most heavily upon people who cannot depend upon having a policeman always nearby.

Joe King: Years ago people in other countries had a generally favourable view of the British, but now we're more and more seen as lager-louts and thugs. Whenever I go to Greece to visit the almost-relatives I feel the need to apologise for what happens in Faliraki. That's another thing I don't get - why a large number of people feel the need to travel to such a beautiful country as Greece and then head straight away to an English-style pub and to eat fish and chips.
This is because traveling to Greece is now massively affordable to the English working class. ("Common" and "vulgar" are synonyms, you know.)

During the first two decades following World War II, America enjoyed an unprecedented prosperity, even as Europe struggled to rebuild from the war's destruction. Monetary exchange rates made even ordinary Americans seem quite wealthy compared with Europeans, and one result is that quite alot of culturally less-than-upperclass Americans could afford to travel. This led to the stereotype of the ignorant, piggish, "ugly American."

So the only solution to your complaint, I'm afraid, is poverty!
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
most of those public institutions rely for funding on political pressure groups like Greenpease, PETA, etc. etc.

They'll publish anything that makes their benefactors look good.

Prime example are the climate "studies" that conclude there's massive global warming based on no data whatsoever.

Take the study showing a large decrease in polar bear population and health in Canada published a while ago.
Not only is the data patently false (there was indeed a drop in one small area but that was more than offset by a far larger increase in another area nearby which was silently ignored because it would contradict the "researchers" goals), but the conclusions (that the decrease was because of thinning ice and therefore decreasing food supply) was also made up out of thin air. There was no supporting evidence for this theory provided (as it didn't exist...) but it was what the sponsors of the study had told the "researchers" should be the conclusion so they talked their way towards it.

Or take the studies showing that all kinds of stuff are highly dangerous to peoples' health based on studies of lab animals.
Usually the concentrations that are needed in lab animals to induce even minor negative effects are tens of thousands of times higher than what's encountered in the products being villified.
Remember the shampoo scare a few years ago? Someone had discovered that a lot of shampoos contain a strong carcinogenic substance. Newspapers and TV stations went berserk, so did public health agencies and the FDA.
Until it was discovered that the study had been deliberately misquoted, some vital data had not been made available.
Turned out someone needed to wash his hair 1000 times a day for 100 years, using at least a bottle of shampoo each time, to get a 0.1% higher chance of skin cancer.
Most such studies are similar.

I've been involved myself in a study into the effects of the dumping of nuclear reactors in the Barentz sea by the Soviet navy.
The results were never published publicly despite our attempts to get someone to do so for the simple reason that they didn't conform to the doomsday scenarios the environmentalist lobby wants the public to see.
Our research had shown that the effects of even unrealistically large doses of radiation leaking out of those reactors would not have even midterm effects more than a few kilometers from the site. The currents of the ocean in the area would dissipate any radioactive material to undetectable levels long before it reached any area of human activity.

Of course the junk scientists and their benefactors try to villify those trying to expose them, it's only natural.
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
There was allways and still is a difference between studies in social science like sociology, politics, economics, etc. disciplines and science science (like physics or chemistry).
I can step up on Cologne Cathedral (168 m) and throw a paper and a iron ball. I can easily show that the iron ball creates a hole in the ground and the paper probably does not (never tried).

Social studies are about human behaviour. And there are just too many known and unknown causes for agression to finally prove that TV makes kids aggressive. You just can say that you have found a strong indication.

I still haven't read the study
Generally I believe that every sane person does read social studies with a huge dose of distrust. On the other hand I wouldn't allege every study writer 100% dishonest motives and an automatic tendency for spreading propaganda among mankind.
Social science have developed guidelines to create studies as unbiased as possible. There are different levels of scientific scrutinity, but you'll never get 100% exactness.
[ November 30, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8829
    
    5
Hmmm...

Try actually reading one of these studies with a scientific mindset instead of reading the news summaries. They are junk science.

Second, just because there are a lot of studies means nothing. This is the "if I throw a lot of shit on the wall, no one will notice it stinks" theory. I am sure the psychiatry departments of all these institutions do have an agenda whether it is looking for more funding or just trying to get published so they can get tenure. If you think otherwise then you don;t understand how things work in the soft science deaprtments of our major universities.


Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that all university studies are unreliable, and tenure-based, that still leaves us with AAFP, AAP, NIMH, and the AMA findings, just to name a few.

I think Axel makes a good point, human behavior is a lot trickier to understand than a lot of the so-called "hard sciences". That doesn't mean we shouldn't try however, and although we might not ever be able to conclusively "prove" some things, when we collect a preponderance of data leaning in one direction, and we apply Occam's Razor to a situation, we can often move forward with good confidence.

Remember that the brain is totally reliant on outside stimuli. Sure, we have a neocortex that we can use to make logical decisions, but we also have an amygdala, which is designed to override our logic and get us away from danger. So your neocortex might be able to determine logically that what you're watching on TV isn't real, but your amygdala doesn't agree... and biochemical tests on adrenaline levels back this up.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try however, and although we might not ever be able to conclusively "prove" some things, when we collect a preponderance of data leaning in one direction, and we apply Occam's Razor to a situation, we can often move forward with good confidence.

I was just reading about a study done in Sweden that ahowed that women who have 2 glasses of milk a day have markedly increased risk of ovarian cancer. Nice study, except that three months ago another study showed exactly the opposite... that women who have more milk decrease their risk of all cancers. Obviously these studies can't both be right so it is likely that one of these studies has missed something else that is affecting their results. If a study aimed at something as easily observed as cancer (either you have it or you don't) can't get it right, then how less likely is it that a study observing something as esoteric as violent behavior in kindergartners is going to get it right? Again, I beg you to actually read the studies themselves. They are laughable in their lack of scientific rigor.

As far as who is doing the study, you should note that the AMA does not do studies themselves and does not express the opinion of anyone beyond the dozen or so doctors that run the AMA. The APA is probably the biggest joke of any of these organizations. Again, they don't do any research on their own but simply express the opinion of the people who run the organization.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Remember that the brain is totally reliant on outside stimuli.

Really? So there is no such thing as free will since everything comes from outside? So I guess quietly sitting in a room and thinking must be impossible since there is no outside stimuli to get the old brain going.

So your neocortex might be able to determine logically that what you're watching on TV isn't real, but your amygdala doesn't agree... and biochemical tests on adrenaline levels back this up.

Interestingly, scientists haven't even concluded that the amygdala is ionvolved in agression or violence. It is likely that the amygdala is involved in processing violent scenes but it isn't clear that this means anything as far as violent behavior is concerned since it isn't clear that the amygdala is linked to the cortex. In any case, the studies you are referring to involved showing incredibly gruesome violence, much worse than is ever seen on TV. And it certainly doesn't show a link to any non-violent TV fare which you need to show since your proposal would tax all TV not just violent TV.

Also, Americans are not the only people on the planet with TV. If TV universally causes increased violence, then why don't we see increased violence universally? Or are Americans more susceptible to violence from watching TV?
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8829
    
    5
�� �� �� �� � � ��
Remember that the brain is totally reliant on outside stimuli.

Really? So there is no such thing as free will since everything comes from outside? So I guess quietly sitting in a room and thinking must be impossible since there is no outside stimuli to get the old brain going.


Ah Thomas, the rigor Let me expand... when reacting to the world, the brain relies on other organs (eyes, ears...), and trusts them to give it input...


So your neocortex might be able to determine logically that what you're watching on TV isn't real, but your amygdala doesn't agree... and biochemical tests on adrenaline levels back this up.

Interestingly, scientists haven't even concluded that the amygdala is ionvolved in agression or violence. It is likely that the amygdala is involved in processing violent scenes but it isn't clear that this means anything as far as violent behavior is concerned since it isn't clear that the amygdala is linked to the cortex. In any case, the studies you are referring to involved showing incredibly gruesome violence, much worse than is ever seen on TV. And it certainly doesn't show a link to any non-violent TV fare which you need to show since your proposal would tax all TV not just violent TV.

Also, Americans are not the only people on the planet with TV. If TV universally causes increased violence, then why don't we see increased violence universally? Or are Americans more susceptible to violence from watching TV?


Well how many times did the networks show the twin towers falling? I'd say that qualifies as gruesome violence. Also, the general concensus is that the amygdala is a major player in dealing with danger, producing fear and fight or flight type responses..

In terms of my proposal(s), I've actually made several... at this point I'd say it would be a major victory if the broadcasters had to run "TV warning" PSAs.

Who said we haven't seen increased violence universally?
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Thomas Paul:

Nice study, except that three months ago another study showed exactly the opposite... that women who have more milk decrease their risk of all cancers. Obviously these studies can't both be right so it is likely that one of these studies has missed something else that is affecting their results.

Or they are just seeing statistical variation. When looking at low probability events like cancer, it's pretty easy for the noise to obscure the signal. Twenty years ago we didn't tend to see such studies because anything below a 95% statistical confidence level was considered lack of evidence for a link; nowadays, though, it seems like some of the studies don't even bother to calculate their level of statistical confidence, so some pretty inconclusive results get reported as conclusive.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Bert Bates:

Well how many times did the networks show the twin towers falling? I'd say that qualifies as gruesome violence.

Questionable. Such a scene in a movie wouldn't get it an "R" rating, possibly not even a "PG" rating; in terms of videogames, it's about the violence level of "Sim City". What gave it impact was that we knew it was real, which is not true of the "violent" programs people tend to complain about.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Axel Janssen:

There was allways and still is a difference between studies in social science like sociology, politics, economics, etc. disciplines and science science (like physics or chemistry).

I don't agree, at least not with respect to economics. Economics is enough of a science now that the Fed can maintain inflation rates within a fairly narrow range; good market data, particularly in the form of conjoint analyses, when combined with diffusion models, can do a surprisingly good job at predicting the penetration of new products and services over time.

I think that if people ever start applying rigorous quantitative methods to sociology and politics, they'll find that they can come up with things with strong predictive power in those studies as well. What's holding them back is a reluctance to go beyond qualitative conclusions.
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
@Warren:
I see a difference between ex-post statistics and ex-ante predictions. Ex-ante predictions are based on asumptions per definition. Same with the models that back up economic theories. Even when those models are produced with mathematical rigor, they are based on models which are only an image of the reality. Not reality itself. No Economist would claim that he can catch all forces which has an efect on the economy, which is complex and full of psychology.
If you are good at producing those models, you can prove nearly everything. All depends on the underlying assumptions. Good thing with the mathematical models is that the assumptions are laid out in a clear way. Nevertheless they are produced with simplifying assumptions, especially regarding human behaviour. This doesn't mean that economists like Keynes, Friedman, Laffer or Krugman produced only artsy fartsy mumbo jumbo, but interesting new thinking about the working of the economy.

Axel
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Thomas Paul:

Nice study, except that three months ago another study showed exactly the opposite... that women who have more milk decrease their risk of all cancers. Obviously these studies can't both be right so it is likely that one of these studies has missed something else that is affecting their results.

Or they are just seeing statistical variation. When looking at low probability events like cancer, it's pretty easy for the noise to obscure the signal. Twenty years ago we didn't tend to see such studies because anything below a 95% statistical confidence level was considered lack of evidence for a link; nowadays, though, it seems like some of the studies don't even bother to calculate their level of statistical confidence, so some pretty inconclusive results get reported as conclusive.


Which means both are flawed...
But guess which story will be lapped up by the mass media?
Showing that something does NOT cause cancer is no news, showing that something DOES cause cancer is.

Anyway, releasing the second study without referring in the conclusions to the first is patently wrong.

Of course it's commonplace. In more than once case "researchers" have released studies completely contradicting their own work of greater magnitude done earlier which contradicts the findings they set out to achieve for the work in progress.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Ah Thomas, the rigor Let me expand... when reacting to the world, the brain relies on other organs (eyes, ears...), and trusts them to give it input...

You speak of the brain as if it is some foreign occupying power on your body. The brain doesn't trust anything beyond what I want them to trust. When I take off my glasses I don;t go around saying that there must be something with the laws of physics because the world seems to be very blurry. Everything that goes into my brain is filtered by my experience and knowledge. I don't see someone get stabbed on TV and run to the phone to call 911. And anyone who thinks that violence on TV affects people the same way as real violence has never witnessed real violence. Trust me on this one, Bert. Real violence is PROFOUNDLY more affective.

In terms of my proposal(s), I've actually made several... at this point I'd say it would be a major victory if the broadcasters had to run "TV warning" PSAs.

At the beginning of every TV show they put up a box that gives the rating and warns if the show has violent content.
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8829
    
    5
You speak of the brain as if it is some foreign occupying power on your body. The brain doesn't trust anything beyond what I want them to trust. When I take off my glasses I don;t go around saying that there must be something with the laws of physics because the world seems to be very blurry. Everything that goes into my brain is filtered by my experience and knowledge. I don't see someone get stabbed on TV and run to the phone to call 911. And anyone who thinks that violence on TV affects people the same way as real violence has never witnessed real violence. Trust me on this one, Bert. Real violence is PROFOUNDLY more affective.


Thomas - two points

1 - If you read what most leading brain researchers are discovering today, there really is a difference between you and your brain, and there are ways in which *you* have a lot less control than *you* think *you* do. And this is even more true for kids.

B - I never equated the effects of TV violence to *real* violence... I do contend that TV violence has an effect, but I never said it was just as strong an effect. And for the record, I'd say that watching a real live human being *choose* to jump from 80 or 90 stories is pretty darned real.
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
 
subject: Kill your television - get an insurance discount?