Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: gun ownership and violent crime

Expand Messages
  • Don Zimmerman
    ... DWZ: I think you are confusing the statistical significance of a correlation with the meaning and theoretical significance of a correlation. The former is
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

      >> But Don, statistics comes with a purpose built suite of standardizations and tools that support the end to end process of treatment, for establishing the significance of a correlation.
      >
      >
      > - Are you saying there's a linkage in that process that has been overlooked?
      >
      > - Are you saying the process, or one or more of the suite of supporting tools, are flawed?
      >
      > - Are you saying that two highly skilled technicians on opposite sides of the planet would perform the same analysis, get the same correlation, then each of them take the correlation through the standardized treatments, both following exactly the right approaches as templated in statistical theory, yet would end up with different assessments?


      DWZ:
      I think you are confusing the statistical significance of a correlation with the meaning and theoretical significance of a correlation. The former is an indication, through statistical hypothesis testing, of the likelihood that the observed relationship may have been come about solely by chance , i.e. random sampling. The latter is concerned with the empirical relationship between the variables being correlated with one another, whether it is cause-and-effect, or whether the two are related to one another only because they are both related to a third variable, or for other reasons.

      Best regards,

      Don Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
    • rafonda@frontier.com
      coupla good posts here hibbsa. RAF ________________________________ From: hibbsa To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday,
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 31, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        coupla good posts here hibbsa.

        RAF


        From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:34 AM
        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: gun ownership and violent crime

         


        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@> wrote:
        >
        > > lol - you only say the correlation/causation line when something has bounced you into obfuscation mode.
        >
        >
        > DWZ:
        > I should think the misinterpretation of correlation as causation has been a major impediment to the development of psychology as a science. Of course, students learn in statistics courses that correlation is not the same as causation and usually understand the difference. But when it is time to write a thesis or do research after graduation, they go forth and do correlational studies that are often misinterpreted. I would guess the reason is that, in the pressure for publication, it is easier to perform those studies using already-available data than it is to analyze behavior in laboratory or objective field settings and seek causal relationships.
        >
        > Best regards,
        >
        > Don Zimmerman
        > Vancouver, BC, Canada
        > dwzimm@...
        > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        >

        But Don, statistics comes with a purpose built suite of standardizations and tools that support the end to end process of treatment, for establishing the significance of a correlation.

        - Are you saying there's a linkage in that process that has been overlooked?

        - Are you saying the process, or one or more of the suite of supporting tools, are flawed?

        - Are you saying that two highly skilled technicians on opposite sides of the planet would perform the same analysis, get the same correlation, then each of them take the correlation through the standardized treatments, both following exactly the right approaches as templated in statistical theory, yet would end up with different assessments?

        I don't think you are saying any of the above, because basically I've asked you all this before. And the answers I get are...well it just pushes you further into obfuscaation mode, Honestlhy Don..you and kohl between the two of you :o)



      • hibbsa
        ... I m not confusing this up Don. What I m doing is communicating to you at the more realistic level. In many ways we re saying the same thing to each other.
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@> wrote:
          >
          > >> But Don, statistics comes with a purpose built suite of standardizations and tools that support the end to end process of treatment, for establishing the significance of a correlation.
          > >
          > >
          > > - Are you saying there's a linkage in that process that has been overlooked?
          > >
          > > - Are you saying the process, or one or more of the suite of supporting tools, are flawed?
          > >
          > > - Are you saying that two highly skilled technicians on opposite sides of the planet would perform the same analysis, get the same correlation, then each of them take the correlation through the standardized treatments, both following exactly the right approaches as templated in statistical theory, yet would end up with different assessments?
          >
          >
          > DWZ:
          > I think you are confusing the statistical significance of a correlation with the meaning and theoretical significance of a correlation. The former is an indication, through statistical hypothesis testing, of the likelihood that the observed relationship may have been come about solely by chance , i.e. random sampling. The latter is concerned with the empirical relationship between the variables being correlated with one another, whether it is cause-and-effect, or whether the two are related to one another only because they are both related to a third variable, or for other reasons.
          >
          > Best regards,
          >
          > Don Zimmerman
          > Vancouver, BC, Canada
          > dwzimm@...
          > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          >

          I'm not confusing this up Don. What I'm doing is communicating to you at the more realistic level. In many ways we're saying the same thing to each other. We're both saying that Science does not provide a 'hands-free' solution that guarantees truthful discovery.

          You are saying that to me. And I am saying that to you. We are agreeing that, used dishonestly, or incompetently, or used with large personal, and overwhelmingly influential, personal or tribal blind spots, Science is as useful or worthless as religion or ideology.

          We are agreeing. But...the level I stepped to, is where we also note that science is a *potential* solution, if everyone is well motivated and interested in finding out what is true, as best as possible.

          Is that you? Well, my observation is that when certain subjects come up, what you begin to do is play verbal games using the vocabularly of science but not its spirit, which if pushed or pressured, amount to throwing up terms of reference that are totally unresolvable by the scientific method.

          I totally get it that you don't want IQ to be heritable, and you don't want gun crime to be an inner city, urban phenomenon strongly identified with gang sub-cultures. I totally get all that.

          And I don't resent or object to any of that, directly. But I do resent and object when people attempt to distort where the evidence is, and the quality of that evidence, for personal reasons.

          I resent and object whatever the motive or the source. I resent and object Kohl's behaviour of obfuscation, which comes from a completely different underlying psychology. As do you.

          I resent it and object to it, because I sense that Science and Enlightenment ultimately cannot survive this sort of assault from within. You see it just as I do. But what you don't see, is that you do it.
        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: As far as I can see, what you have said in this post has little or nothing to do with the statistical significance of correlation or the distinction
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

            > I'm not confusing this up Don. What I'm doing is communicating to you at the more realistic level. In many ways we're saying the same thing to each other. We're both saying that Science does not provide a 'hands-free' solution that guarantees truthful discovery.
            >
            > You are saying that to me. And I am saying that to you. We are agreeing that, used dishonestly, or incompetently, or used with large personal, and overwhelmingly influential, personal or tribal blind spots, Science is as useful or worthless as religion or ideology.


            DWZ:
            As far as I can see, what you have said in this post has little or nothing to do with the statistical significance of correlation or the distinction between correlation and causation. It is as if you have begun a new thread.

            But I agree that scientists, like many other people, are often committed to ideas and beliefs about certain issues that are not quite as open-minded and objective as they would like to pretend. And different people, including you and I, surely have various degrees of success in overcoming their personal prejudices when exploring controversial issues.

            Best regards,

            Don Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          • james kohl
            From: hibbsa it just pushes you further into obfuscaation mode, Honestlhy Don..you and kohl between the two of you :o) JK: You continue to
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>" it just pushes you further into obfuscaation mode, Honestlhy Don..you and kohl between the two of you :o)"

              JK: You continue to claim I have obfuscated something in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. What is it about my work that is not perfectly clear? For comparison, what do you think is clear about anything you have written that has anything to do with biologically based cause and effect?
               
              James V. Kohl
              Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
              Independent researcher
              Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
              Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


              From: "rafonda@..." <rafonda@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:42 PM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: gun ownership and violent crime

               
              coupla good posts here hibbsa.

              RAF


              From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:34 AM
              Subject: [evol-psych] Re: gun ownership and violent crime

               


              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@> wrote:
              >
              > > lol - you only say the correlation/causation line when something has bounced you into obfuscation mode.
              >
              >
              > DWZ:
              > I should think the misinterpretation of correlation as causation has been a major impediment to the development of psychology as a science. Of course, students learn in statistics courses that correlation is not the same as causation and usually understand the difference. But when it is time to write a thesis or do research after graduation, they go forth and do correlational studies that are often misinterpreted. I would guess the reason is that, in the pressure for publication, it is easier to perform those studies using already-available data than it is to analyze behavior in laboratory or objective field settings and seek causal relationships.
              >
              > Best regards,
              >
              > Don Zimmerman
              > Vancouver, BC, Canada
              > dwzimm@...
              > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
              >

              But Don, statistics comes with a purpose built suite of standardizations and tools that support the end to end process of treatment, for establishing the significance of a correlation.

              - Are you saying there's a linkage in that process that has been overlooked?

              - Are you saying the process, or one or more of the suite of supporting tools, are flawed?

              - Are you saying that two highly skilled technicians on opposite sides of the planet would perform the same analysis, get the same correlation, then each of them take the correlation through the standardized treatments, both following exactly the right approaches as templated in statistical theory, yet would end up with different assessments?

              I don't think you are saying any of the above, because basically I've asked you all this before. And the answers I get are...well it just pushes you further into obfuscaation mode, Honestlhy Don..you and kohl between the two of you :o)





            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.