tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post7635321551455351689..comments2023-07-15T04:20:16.543-05:00Comments on Almost Diamonds: Reaction Times and IQ TestsStephanie Zvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-86933331737701928692010-01-04T21:31:38.112-06:002010-01-04T21:31:38.112-06:00Just stay away from Laden's blog. Those Scien...Just stay away from Laden's blog. Those Scienceblog bloggers tend to stick together and gang up on intruders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-57143288823068350992010-01-02T00:00:26.385-06:002010-01-02T00:00:26.385-06:00No; I'm good. Perhaps it's time to put thi...No; I'm good. Perhaps it's time to put this puppy to rest.<br /><br />Thanks Mike for hosting.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-17761706448164421952010-01-01T22:28:00.761-06:002010-01-01T22:28:00.761-06:00"Sobel's test produces a value of 3.49, w..."Sobel's test produces a value of 3.49, with a p value of .000428"<br /><br />Very nice! Bullet dodged and you must be very relieved. Low power or not, that confirms the finding you reported.<br /><br />As I said originally, I am still very hesitant to draw any conclusions from the method, but that was (potentially) a very serious problem you can check off of my list.<br /><br />I've got to concentrate on other things now and I think we've all had our say, so I probably won't check the comments of this post again. If you want to reach me, I link to my blog with every comment.badrescherhttp://icbseverywhere.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-22337416208200096352010-01-01T21:19:31.085-06:002010-01-01T21:19:31.085-06:00Mike, bite me.
I'm only here because this is ...Mike, bite me.<br /><br />I'm only here because this is a thread -- not started by me-- devoted to exposing my racist ignorant professional career.<br /><br />If someone did that to whatever you do for a living, I'd bet you'd be posting replies in defense.<br /><br />If these are your resources, ban me or wait til the thread dies; otherwise stfu.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-35595696431993181932010-01-01T20:09:58.932-06:002010-01-01T20:09:58.932-06:00Bryan -
I am not a fan of Blogger commenting, ei...Bryan - <br /><br />I am not a fan of Blogger commenting, either, however I have given you resources so that you can choose a platform of your own. Do you expect Stephanie to do all the work for you?<br /><br />You really aren't so stupid as to be unable to start a blog, are you? Of course not, you are a white male.Mike Haubrichhttp://quichemoraine.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-69123092956236273372010-01-01T14:29:20.153-06:002010-01-01T14:29:20.153-06:00Hi Stephanie, and HNY.
If we continue this here, ...Hi Stephanie, and HNY.<br /><br />If we continue this here, and I suspect we will, could you post it on a blog that has better comment-editing capabilities than this one.<br /><br />Or, if my unfamiliarity with blog stuff is preventing me from using whatever editing features are available on this blog, please advise.<br /><br />Even cutting and pasting from Word is hard here, at least for me.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-50492408040976717062010-01-01T01:15:54.941-06:002010-01-01T01:15:54.941-06:00I re-ran the stuff for table 4 (the ect mediation ...I re-ran the stuff for table 4 (the ect mediation analysis). All numbers are correct in the table.<br /><br />It hit me why I didn't report standard errors-- I have standardized beta weights in the table (I prefer them as the un-standardized ones are hard to interpret, and since my ECT variable is a z score anyway).<br /><br />So, that's why no standard errors.<br /><br />Here's the un-standardized values:<br /><br />path a (race to ect) the b is .776 and the SE is .176<br /><br />path b (ect to IQ) is -2.36 and .414 respectively.<br /><br />Sobel's test produces a value of 3.49, with a p value of .000428<br /><br />So, I think it's clear I have a nice mediation effect, despite a small sample size for black students (no erratum needed!).<br /><br />The Sobel test has crappy power? If so, despite that, the conclusion is the same as mine in the article; mediation existed.<br /><br />More later; thanks for yer postings here.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-9914727523616034152009-12-31T19:09:38.231-06:002009-12-31T19:09:38.231-06:00If this thread hits 100 posts, will Stephanie get ...If this thread hits 100 posts, will Stephanie get a 1-up? So far as I can tell, she's gotten many already.ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268073141634736748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-21468694205289776082009-12-31T18:23:21.129-06:002009-12-31T18:23:21.129-06:00"I scoured through the B&K article when d...<i>"I scoured through the B&K article when doing this study;"</i><br /><br />Bryan, the B&K article you cited was published in 1986. Things pop up in peer review, discussion, and revision, like the fact that a test can and should be done to determine the probability that c - c' is significantly different from zero. Taking a look at the articles which have cited this in the more than 20 years since its publication would have been a good idea, as would consulting a more recent book on the topic. In this case, as with most statistical issues, Googling it will do the job. Statisticians tend to be pretty computer savvy.<br /><br />Perhaps you fell prey to the myth that there is nothing much to discuss in statistics, but that's certainly not true given that, unlike pure mathematics, it is a science.<br /><br />Your comment makes me wonder, though, if you read the page to which I linked. He discussed the issues raised by others and the simple test which would settle the question pretty clearly.<br /><br />I cannot determine if the mediation effect is robust or not without those few missing bits of info, but I am certainly happy to calculate it for you. Should it turn out that your effect is supported, I see no reason to amend or note anything. <br /><br />If, however, the effect does not hold up, it's not the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination. As mistakes go, failing to run that last (albeit important) step is about the best kind you can make. An erratum would fix the problem - hopefully before someone else catches it, although I am shocked that nobody has so far - and perhaps give you more hypotheses to test. <br /><br />Run the numbers or provide them so that I can do so. If the effect disappears, we can talk about what to do with that info. Until then, it's just an unanswered question hanging over your findings. <br /><br />Since Greg is still seething, I'll add a comment from among those I jotted down, but did not post. In regard to this: <br /><br /><i>"The idea that a three point difference in IQ between males and females (which is highly questionable to begin with) could be considered explanatory of centuries of exclusion of women from certain jobs is THE FUCKING MOST ABSURD AND OFFENSIVE, MISOGYNOUS AND STUPID IDIOTIC MORONIC (DID I SAY STUPID) THING I've heard from anybody in WEEKS."</i><br /><br />Given the amount of eye-rolling that Greg has done over commentors in the past month, this is a pretty strong statement. I wonder if the problem here is not that you believe that "a three point difference in IQ between males and females could be considered explanatory of centuries of exclusion of women from certain jobs", but that you don't think that you have said this. You have. <br /><br />The comment I did not make last night was in response to your statement <i>"You don't seem to understand how a small mean difference at a group level can lead to big under-representation/over-representation at the extreme ends of a distribution?"</i><br /><br />Okay, setting aside the wording problem (statistics don't <i>lead to</i> data point distributions), mean differences in normal distributions (which, by definition, have moderate variance) describe the amount that two similar distributions overlap. Small effect sizes means small differences. They don't get larger as you move toward the tails. <br /><br />But the bigger problem is the one Greg's been harping on: You've basically said that gender or race - take your pick (A) is correlated with IQ (B) and occupation (C), which are correlated with each other, therefore B explains the correlation of A with C.<br /><br />Having just defended a paper in which mediation analysis is key, I hope you can see the error in this logic. If not, here's an analogy:<br />Weight is correlated with height, which is correlated with the number of years of education, therefore taller people have more education because they weigh more. That is, of course, insanely stupid.badrescherhttp://icbseverywhere.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-88344633962496259982009-12-31T17:34:58.849-06:002009-12-31T17:34:58.849-06:00Bryan, I'm not concerned with your feelings ab...Bryan, I'm not concerned with your feelings about how the research on stereotype threat is going to come out. I am concerned with the fact that you're misrepresenting research like the meta-analysis you claimed said stereotype threat was a dud.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-50785642816976206372009-12-31T16:16:16.921-06:002009-12-31T16:16:16.921-06:00Greg, shall we call a truce for the holiday and ba...Greg, shall we call a truce for the holiday and bash this out while crappy college football is on tomorrow?<br /><br />Happy NY.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-36373451422243628152009-12-31T16:15:25.588-06:002009-12-31T16:15:25.588-06:00Stephanie.
I spent about 30 seconds searching the...Stephanie.<br /><br />I spent about 30 seconds searching the pdf and then scanning the abstract. I won't be reading the article unless it's for entertainment purposes at my leisure.<br /><br />I've seen this happen too often with other effects, even when the topic is not so politically sensitive as race and IQ. Fortunately, with time, the effects become historical blind alleys.<br /><br />A classic example is my dissertation: negative priming. This was the shits in the 90s. People published like crazy on it, and it was advanced as the new explanation for cognitive aging. My dissertation was skeptical of the leading theoretical explanation for the effect. I had 2 or 3 RT tasks that on balance showed a problem with the theory.<br /><br />Holy crap was that a mother of an effect to find. It's 10 ms in good cases (a mean difference in RT 3 times quicker than an eye blink, yet people thought it was a domain global explanation for many things in cognitive psych). I dunno; there might be 100 articles now on NP (very few since the 1990s as the area is and should be – I think— dead).<br /><br />I bet / assert that more than half of these 100 studies could not be replicated would anyone care to try. I would be surprised if my dissertation would completely replicate, and I know exactly that I did nothing suspect. Something fishy's going on in this literature, but welcome to social science.<br /><br />You'd have to be wholly suicidal to do this stuff with race and IQ (if you are arguing the non-pc track). I don’t care what anyone says about Rushton but no way no how would he keep his job (tenured / union or not) if he smegged his data. I bet with all I have that Jensen and Rushton are more honest scientists than the vast lot of us.<br /><br />I am not claiming fraud in the NP data, but when tenure / promotion / grant $'s on the line, shit tends to find a way to get published. Effects tend to emerge as significant, etc.<br /><br /><br />Other effects that have been just as much bullshit (and these are just the ones I am aware of in a narrow sub-discipline). Try not to think about white bears?! (The ironic effects of repetition); the 2d4d stuff (fascinating; I linked to it on greg’s blog, but it’s oversold for sure. Watch what happens with time). Stereotype threat. Guaranteed. Don’t waste your time researching it if you need a publication stream that lasts til tenure.<br /><br />Scientists are biased as shit. The only thing saving humanity is for every one who shares your bias, the other doesn’t. So, only closer and closer approximations to truth survive. Thank God.<br /><br />Again, I believe this so strongly that I have the damn word tattooed on my arm. There’s nothing noble about being a scientist except that if your stuff stands the test of time and individually-biased-on-average-but-washed-out-at-large critical review, it becomes science.<br /><br />(Said differently: the expected value of bias in any science area, caused by individual scientists’ quirky biases, is zero across time. This is a variant of one of Spearman’s ideas—the guy who discovered g, and invented the concept of reliability to better measure things; oh, and factor analysis too!). He killed himself in late life by jumping out a hospital window…<br /><br />Done for today; g’night!Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-52229456136326295512009-12-31T16:13:37.602-06:002009-12-31T16:13:37.602-06:00OMG, this is funny.
Brian Pesta, the evidence tha...OMG, this is funny.<br /><br />Brian Pesta, the evidence that you are a moron mounts. (That means increases.) <br /><br /><em>Didn't see any kind of spamming, though I was in the blog exactly when Greg was whacking threads to save face.</em><br /><br />Seriously? Do you know what this tells us about how you think? OMG...<br /><br />Hold still while I 'splain:<br /><br />A given post on that thread (or any active thread on a controversial topic) may or may not have appeared AFTER I freed it from moderation (probably about 10 of them over a couple of days in this case). A given post may have been posted, I deemed it, as is my right, inappropriate and deleted it. That's maybe a dozen or so posts, over a period of a couple of days. A given post may have been held in moderation and deleted by me, never seeing the light of day (and therefore never being seen by anyone). Another dozen. Another unknown number never even made it into the moderation bin because they were caught by a spam filter.<br /><br />So there is a flux of posts going in and out of given active thread. All the time. <br /><br />(Aside: When you cried out that you had seen several posts deleted, that was impossible because only one or two visible posts had been deleted during your self proclaimed window of observation, and that led me to conclude tentatively but probably correctly that you knew about comments that you could have not known about unless you had posted them or knew someone who posted them and were in communication with that person. Like a friend or a colleague in, say, Colorado.) <br /><br />Back to the point: That there is a flux of posts and that it is fairly complicated and that it runs over a period of time are all obvious facts, and anyone with two neurons to rub together would know that.<br /><br />But you observed the blog for various brief periods of time and during one of those periods of time you saw (so you claim) a couple of posts that i deemed inappropriate (which is my right) disappear.<br /><br />And from this you develop accusations, a model of conspiracy, and some very bad blood. <br /><br />Bryan, listen: This is now how to make and interpret observations. For instance, when you close your eyes the world does not actually disappear. It is still there. There are often multiple things going on that you may not, at first, know about, and just because you find out about something later in the process of observing and studying data does not mean that these later factors have to be ruled out. <br /><br />This explains your inability to understand context in your research. You have a simplistic view of development and genetics because you can not comprehend a larger and more complex world ... THE larger world in which biological processes play out. You are a simple minded fool, and an annoying one at that. <br /><br />Example: <br /><br />The idea that a three point difference in IQ between males and females (which is highly questionable to begin with) could be considered explanatory of centuries of exclusion of women from certain jobs is THE FUCKING MOST ABSURD AND OFFENSIVE, MISOGYNOUS AND STUPID IDIOTIC MORONIC (DID I SAY STUPID) THING I've heard from anybody in WEEKS. And I'm a BLOGGER!!!!! <br /><br />OMFG!!!!<br /><br />Sorry, your ongoing idiocy over the question of comment deletion reminded me of that charming moment.Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-20247992881137920732009-12-31T15:47:40.833-06:002009-12-31T15:47:40.833-06:00More later; sad I can't stop posting here...ne...More later; sad I can't stop posting here...new year's eve even.<br /><br />I scoured through the B&K article when doing this study; checked and double checked. It's possible I screwed it up-- if so, that's bad enough to require an erratum, and I will do it -- submit it to the journal-- if you show that I messed up. I will even credit you / cite you for pointing out the error (that would look nice on a vita were I considering someone in the job market).<br /><br />If we keep interacting and you keep coming up with expert points I will offer to write a glowing letter of rec (if indeed you are on the market). I'm an HR prof and very good at these and I can write the truth if our interactions lead to that (plus some in field are ok with my expertise, and maybe two or three have read something I've done so it might be helpful-- if it's not, that's cool too).<br /><br />But I really do need time to dig through my files find it, reframe myself re the analysis. <br /><br />Why I think I am right; I also spent a fair amount of time on this issue for another paper-- but it was not the simple B&K article; it was the one on moderated mediation and mediated moderation (holy fuck!). I think I actually understood though, so I'd be surprised if I flucked up the simple analysis here.<br /><br />Happy new year!Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-87165802171541529202009-12-31T14:52:25.735-06:002009-12-31T14:52:25.735-06:00The way that you tested for mediation is incomplet...The way that you tested for mediation is incomplete. <br /><br />Kenny's website on mediation analysis discusses testing the significance of the difference between B1 in the regression and B1 in the multiple regression. Read the section titled "Measuring Mediation or the Indirect Effect". <br /><br />http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm<br /><br />The reason I keep harping on this is that although cognitive psych is my content area, I am primarily a methodologist; my MA is in quantitative (experimental) psych (My PhD, when I've completed the dissertation, will be in cognitive and perceptual sciences).badrescherhttp://www.icbseverywhere.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-74099958690672520122009-12-31T14:44:02.044-06:002009-12-31T14:44:02.044-06:00Actually, Bryan, I have only two comments on the d...Actually, Bryan, I have only two comments on the description of the meta-analysis you link to. First, nowhere does it say that publication bias explains most of the effect of stereotype threat. Second, it merely says that stereotype threat is not the only factor in the testing differences. This is hardly surprising.<br /><br />What is surprising is that you seem to continually mistake "doesn't explain <i>all</i> the difference" for "doesn't explain <i>any</i> of the difference." As with SES. As with parental preference for gendered toys.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-46291188130306180412009-12-31T13:47:17.582-06:002009-12-31T13:47:17.582-06:00Btw, seeing ST and Mismeasure cited as good ideas ...Btw, seeing ST and Mismeasure cited as good ideas for suggested readings in IQ is what prompted me to--fatally-- make my first one sentence post in bizarro world.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-57966835299068039292009-12-31T13:44:22.967-06:002009-12-31T13:44:22.967-06:00Oh and I won't debate stereotype threat he...Oh and I won't debate stereotype threat here. It's too much crap to bother wasting my time on (which is why I am not surprised it's in an intro text. I bet mismeasure of man is cited there too).<br /><br />You guys win re any claims you want to make about ST.<br /><br />Last comments on ST:<br /><br />This year's ISIR conference ended last week or so. I did not attend. It does though represent state of the art in IQ research (even if you deem the research to be all crap).<br /><br />So, what the field thinks is key/important high priority is well-represented by the papers at the conference.<br /><br />Here's the entire PDF file of all papers this year.<br /><br />Exactly one on ST.<br /><br />A meta-analysis showing publication bias explains most the effect (gosh, that's surprising).<br /><br />Greg and Step will immediately dismiss it as racists protecting an agenda.<br /><br />But, there it is (and it is a meta-analysis).<br /><br />Page 68:<br /><br />http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdfBryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-62375828977525643142009-12-31T13:33:08.345-06:002009-12-31T13:33:08.345-06:00If the SEs arent in the paper I have to either dig...If the SEs arent in the paper I have to either dig up the hard copy analyses at my office or re-run.<br /><br />I will re-run, but give me time.<br /><br />On the fly comment: I think the baron and kenney test of mediation is complete in my paper (i.e., unless you claim the analyses is incorrectly ran, presenting the SEs only let you verify that I ran the stuff correctly).<br /><br />That said, they should have been reported. The biggest thing I had to do for acceptance was drastically cut the length of the paper. I don't know if that's an excuse, but I concede they're not there.<br /><br />Later!Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-153551781121639732009-12-31T13:00:08.004-06:002009-12-31T13:00:08.004-06:00Most important first:
Regarding giving you time ...Most important first: <br /><br />Regarding giving you time to answer my request for more analysis, <em>I did not ask for more analysis</em>. <strong>I asked for the standard errors of the Bs you reported in your paper.</strong> You MUST have calculated them since they were necessary for the statistical tests you reported. If you don't want to provide them just say so, but be prepared for questions about why that is. <br /><br />I appreciate the offer for a reference, but I have a job and doubt that a letter from someone with which I exchanged comments on a blog would carry much weight.<br /><br /><em>Ah stereotype threat, finally!</em><br /><br />??? Do you actually READ the comments to which you are replying? Stereotype Threat was discussed in one of the early comments on Greg's blog - I mentioned the comment it here last night. Scotlyn has simply summed up comments made elsewhere (some by scotlyn) because they were obviously not addressed.<br /><br />"Stereotype threat" is "heavy hitting"? It's introductory social psychology!<br /><br />I am not even going to touch the rest of your comment, but I'd brace myself for some hate mail if I were you. If you want to know why some commentors accuse you of racism, it's comments like that.<br /><br />Finally, links are links. They have no content. They are citations with a physical connection to the article which saves the reader time - that's it. The CR question is a dead horse.badrescherhttp://icbseverywhere.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-71016634126888139942009-12-31T12:38:58.418-06:002009-12-31T12:38:58.418-06:00Scott, you make good points and I think I promised...Scott, you make good points and I think I promised to reply to you earlier, but haven't. If wife comes home this post may end abruptly. And, after this, I need to scoot for awhile...I don't have time to really proof this post so please ignore any stupid typos.<br /><br />I have nowhere here or in my paper ever said that race differences are genetic.<br /><br />I am agnostic on this issue (recall I was called out for being a wimp by not coming to a conclusion now.)<br /><br />But, should I link to an older blog of Greg's where he says he is AGNOSTIC on whether man evolved from apes (perhaps not a verbatim quote, but he said he was agnostic regarding his belief on the point)?<br /><br />Greg can be agnostic on an issue and it doesn't mean something fishy is going on. I can be agnostic too.<br /><br />I will stipulate that the vast majority of studies on race and IQ use self-reports of race.<br /><br />This has biological (race may be wholly a cultural construct, but skin color at least is biological) and social / cultural baggage. It's not for sure 100% accurate as a measure of whatever is the biology of race.<br /><br />But, race is a measured variable just like any other variable in science.<br /><br />And anything measured can be assessed by two simple concepts: reliability and validity.<br /><br />A measure for a scientific paper has utility if it's reliability is at least .70.<br /><br />There are books on different types of reliabilities one can calculate.<br /><br />Self - reports of race would have "internal consistency" reliability. Meaning, were a person to participate in 3 unrelated studies, he or she is very likely to check the same race box each time. Finding one person who claimed he was white to screw my study would not be a confound!<br /><br />So, even if that happened, it would be just a source of error variance. The result would be to lower the reliability of race as a measure. If enough people did this, race would be so unreliable that it could not statistically correlate with anything else. That doesn't happen in the literature.<br /><br />Race is also reliable in an inter-rater reliability sense.<br /><br />Me, you and someone else are the judges. Show us pictures of randomly selected people in the USA.<br /><br />We have three options. The person is white, black or neither (e.g., Asian or too hard to tell because perhaps the person is mixed race).<br /><br />The correlation between our ratings would be a measure of reliability and I have no doubt it would surpass the .70 barrier (I doubt anyone's done this study and I am not going to search the literature for a cite, so call it my intuition and weight it as such).<br /><br />Conversely, I also have no doubt the IC reliability would be less than 1.0<br /><br />There are other ways to measure reliability, but above I think is reasonable to address part of your comment.<br /><br />Validity is a tougher issue, and I will post more later.<br /><br />The short answer is I believe self-reports of race correlate strongly with whatever it is that causes the biology of race (even if we don't know what is yet). The clustering studies linked on Greg's blogs are good examples.<br /><br />No, race cannot be measured with 100% accuracy. But, nothing can. Further, we can specify how much error exists in the measure with a number. We do this all the time with other variables and we use those variables in scientific research.<br /><br />I'd bet the R and V of self-reports of race is higher than the R and V of the blood pressure test as most doctor's offices.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-2083790903243737682009-12-31T12:17:40.834-06:002009-12-31T12:17:40.834-06:00Jason. This is on the title page of the article St...Jason. This is on the title page of the article Stephanie links to in this blog thread:<br /><br />This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached<br />copy is furnished to the author for ****internal**** non-commercial research<br />and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution<br />and sharing with colleagues.<br />Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or<br />licensing copies, or ****posting to personal, institutional or third party<br />websites are prohibited.***<br /><br /><br />The parts I asterisked make it not clear to me whether linking to my article by a third party is a CR violation.<br /><br />I honestly don't know if this is fair use-- the differnece between posting the actual PDF third party or a link to it.<br /><br />I think if I had posted the link, it would not be a VR violation, because I am not a third party. <br /><br />But I dunno (send, lawyers, guns and money?)Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-84194157520905587072009-12-31T12:12:29.773-06:002009-12-31T12:12:29.773-06:00Lols. No, my department doesn't even accept im...Lols. No, my department doesn't even accept impact factors from SCI (well, they would if it something they published, but they don't when it's something I published. I suspect anything-- even a garage sale ad in the paper would count for them re promotion, but not me. But, that's a long story..).<br /><br />75% of them voted against me for tenure and my final dossier is now under review at the university level.<br /><br />Many people like google scholar as a measure of prestige better than impact factors. Publish or Perish uses it to calculate tons of stats on authors and journals.<br /><br />The point is, I bet this blog will be picked up in the p or p database, and so will artificially inflate my statistics.<br /><br />Meaning: I really think impact factors are much better than google scholar.Bryan Pestahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08489662466643928790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-87130288388076280682009-12-31T12:08:27.604-06:002009-12-31T12:08:27.604-06:00Jason, you can be rude. For some reason your comme...Jason, you can be rude. For some reason your comments never really motivate me to click the reply button.<br /><br />Barbara -- I am honestly really sorry for assuming you were male. I have tried to write he/she gender neutral stuff throughout all these blogs.<br /><br />No excuse though.<br /><br />Good luck with your degree, and a psych science pub kicks major ass (I've been rejected there!).<br /><br />If you are on the job market soon, I'd be happy to write you a letter of reference given our interactions so far....!<br /><br />Gimme some time to reply, esp requests for more stat analyses. My wife is going to divorce me if I keep obsessing over this, so I'm trying to find some balance between life and the interwebs. She happens to be out now, so I can post some more!Bryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-3905221652530266302009-12-31T11:59:59.003-06:002009-12-31T11:59:59.003-06:00Ah stereotype threat, finally!
I've been biti...Ah stereotype threat, finally!<br /><br />I've been biting my tongue a bit (I know that will be ironic) here just in case some heavy hitter stumbles by.<br /><br />But, I'll say it: The stupidity of the whole idea is laughable, especially when the manipulation doesn't reduce the gap and can't explain why asians and jewish people score higher.<br /><br />A cheesey instructional manipulation is going to explain 100 years of data? Ok.<br /><br />Gots no proof of this here as I am not going to get into this whacky literature. All we have is the test of time. We may perhaps all be dead, but in 10 or 20 years, no one will be doing research on ST.<br /><br />It's one of Jensen's "blind alley" explanations.<br /><br />Agree completely with replies that I am presenting no evidence on the point. This is my commentary for lols on an area I perceive as being cheese.Bryannoreply@blogger.com