What's the deal with the Southern US?

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>



    If I recall my American History correctly, many of the early settlers of Texas actually came from Tennessee. Davy Crockett, for example, was a Tennessean (he died defending the Alamo, for those who don't remember him). As a resident of Tennessee, that fact explains an awful lot to me about Texas... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>







    many of the immigration to texas of the past 10-20 years come from california--i am included in this group. i am kinda confused by the ignorance in this conversation and am somewhat surprised that it is still going...

    oh well--ignorance is bliss, eh?

    as long as it makes u northerners feel better about yerselves, then go right ahead and keep bashing away...
  • Reply 62 of 76
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>



    Umm, if the studies are properly done and peer reviewed, then they very likely represent their subject accurately. 50 years ago it was "clearly contrary to one's experience and understanding of human behavior" (from the white man's point of view) that African-Americans weren't inferior and deserved equal rights. It is "science" (as you put it) to question your own perceptions if a well-designed study contradicts your own experiences. The "scientific" point of view is to question all assumptions - question the research, yes, but also question why you see things differently. You have to allow for the possibility that the study is right and your perceptions are wrong. And usually, someone with an agenda is someone who's research tells me I'm wrong - I just declare that they have an "agenda" and ignore their results because it's easier to kill the messenger than believe the message. Yes, some researchers are biased. I think that goes for all of us, though...



    [ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And 50 years ago, there were Nazis who had produced studies that said that Jews were inferior. And Soviets that produced studies that showed the New Soviet Man to be advancing. We know now that all of those things were incomplete.



    As for my own personal security, the flaws of most research is in extrapolating the behavior of others to situations close to my heart. For instance, when my life is threatened, that represents ONE incident which has occurred with 100% probability. What I use to get out of danger is then important. Statistics, however, refuse to adequately address isolated incidents such as my being confronted with personal injury. When it happens to YOU, I'm sure you'll feel the same way.
  • Reply 63 of 76
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by finboy:

    <strong>



    And 50 years ago, there were Nazis who had produced studies that said that Jews were inferior. And Soviets that produced studies that showed the New Soviet Man to be advancing. We know now that all of those things were incomplete.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I did say IF the studies were properly designed and peer-reviewed. The studies you refer to were neither. They were indeed propaganda from some people with an agenda. Their "studies" were horribly flawed, however, from a scientific standpoint and never published in a peer-reviewed journal (that I'm aware of, anyway).



    There was actually a controversy a few years ago whether or not to use the data the Nazis had gathered during WWII. It was finally decided that even though innocent people had been killed to acquire it, it could possibly be useful to save lives in the future. When they actually got out the lab notebooks and internal reports, though, they found that most of it was so horribly done and badly designed to be all but worthless.



    So I stand by my earlier comment. IF a study is well designed and peer-reviewed, it very likely represents its subject accurately. It is good scientific procedure to question the results and the metholdology, but also good scientific procedure to question your own thoughts and assumptions if they seems to contradict the results.



    And, I agree with you that in a 1-on-1 encounter, all the studies and statistics go out the window.
  • Reply 64 of 76
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>



    Well, I did say IF the studies were properly designed and peer-reviewed. The studies you refer to were neither. They were indeed propaganda from some people with an agenda. Their "studies" were horribly flawed, however, from a scientific standpoint and never published in a peer-reviewed journal (that I'm aware of, anyway).



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think if you'll look you'll find that "peer-reviewed" can be shaped into whatever you want it to mean.
  • Reply 65 of 76
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by finboy:

    <strong>



    I think if you'll look you'll find that "peer-reviewed" can be shaped into whatever you want it to mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Peer-review means a lot more than passing it around to your buddies for an opinion. In scientific circles it has a very specific meaning. All submissions for publication are sent to 6 to 10 (sometimes more, sometimes less) anonymous reviewers from around the world who are considered by the editor of the journal to be experts in the field. They will recommend changes, additional research, clearer conclusions, etc. It is then cleaned up based on these recommendations. The process is repeated until it is cleared by all the reviewers. Journals develop reputations just as researchers do. Ones that have a habit of publishing bad stuff get extremely unpopular with authors because no one will believe anything they publish. So, the peer-review process is crucial to scientific validity. It is only when the experts deem something worthy of being published that it gets into print. It's not foolproof, but it generally does very well.



    [ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
  • Reply 66 of 76
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    finboy has personal experience with peer review, as do I and probably quite a few of us here. But thanks for the lesson.

  • Reply 67 of 76
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>finboy has personal experience with peer review, as do I and probably quite a few of us here. But thanks for the lesson.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious.



    Finboy: My apologies. I have apparently misunderstood your intention in your posts.



    [ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
  • Reply 68 of 76
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    BTW: 6-10 reviewers? Maybe more? Are there really journals that use more than 10 reviewers?

    :eek:
  • Reply 69 of 76
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>

    BTW: 6-10 reviewers? Maybe more? Are there really journals that use more than 10 reviewers?

    :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well I'm not that familiar with the social sciences and psychology end of things. 4 - 6 is more typical in the "real" sciences. I exaggerated a bit because I knew if I just said 4 - 6, somebody else would say, "Hey, dumbbutt, I submitted a paper to the International Journal of Broccoli Phobias and it had to go through 15 reviewers before it got published!" So, c'est la vie.
  • Reply 70 of 76
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by TJM:

    <strong>



    Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious.



    Finboy: My apologies. I have apparently misunderstood your intention in your posts.



    [ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Accepted. I started to say something in the last post about "peer review" having a specific meaning.



    In most disciplines, "peer review" means about 2 or 3 people at most, but many many more responsible scientists have read it before it goes out. Also, editors must respond to criticism from established academics once the study is published. Unfortunately, when there is an agenda within the discipline (read: almost all of the social sciences today) there isn't an objective process taking place. The system depends upon the responsibility of professionals, and pushing an agenda ISN'T what professionals do.



    Most of the Nazi stuff and Soviet stuff was done within the academic system, after the thugs had forced responsible academics out.



    In other words, (and I'm sure most of you guys would agree) don't take things at their face value.
  • Reply 71 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:

    <strong>put all the stupid people in one state that noone cares about (like minnesota or alaska) and lock it up. </strong><hr></blockquote>







    Ignorance at its best, perhaps?
  • Reply 72 of 76
    _ alliance __ alliance _ Posts: 2,070member
    [quote]Originally posted by Magicite:

    <strong>







    Ignorance at its best, perhaps?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    wow, jokes fly right over yer head, dont they...?



    talk about slow...
  • Reply 73 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:

    <strong>



    wow, jokes fly right over yer head, dont they...?



    talk about slow... </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Want me to apologize for coming to the thread late?
  • Reply 74 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by Magicite:

    <strong>





    Want me to apologize for coming to the thread late?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    what does that have to do w/ anything???

    *sigh* are u blond and female...?
  • Reply 75 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:

    <strong>



    what does that have to do w/ anything???

    *sigh* are u blond and female...?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    Keep it coming, why don't you?



    If you can't figure out what my previous comment dealt with, then....yikes.
  • Reply 76 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by Magicite:

    <strong>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    Keep it coming, why don't you?



    If you can't figure out what my previous comment dealt with, then....yikes.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yes'm. whatever u say...
Sign In or Register to comment.