If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Correlation is not cause
Nor is correlation a useless model.
If we waited around to make decisions until causation proved something we'd be in the stone age still. We work from clues and hints that correlation gives us. We operate everyday on this operational principle. Do you know every function and element of your automobile and have information at your fingertips about what "causes" it to run and move at your command? Of course not. You have a trust, a hint, a clue, that when you do certain things events will take place predictably. That is a correlation. Studies on human learning are similar. And as we have more and better tools for examining brain function, for instance, we move closer to cause based models for research in this subject. Our current knowledge has shown us that while pain can motivate, it also can interfere in learning efforts. And it can and does carry unwanted side effects that other, non-pain based learning models do not have. It would be an extreme rarity for a learner to develop fear or anxiety toward the teacher if nothing punitive was going on in the learning process, while we know that fear and anxiety play a considerable role in a relationship, and by the learner toward the teacher when pain, physical or mental, is applied by that teacher to the learner. Eventually it comes down to choosing pain to teach when the teacher is frustrated and thwarted at the failure of the learner to learn. Is the fault in the learner and needs to be painfully extracted from them, or is the real fault in the teacher who lacks the knowledge and will to learn and apply non-pain based methods of teaching? On Correlation A little resource material on the issues of correlation vs causation in the real world. How long did we used fire before we understood it as physicists? Here, for instance is a typical conversation on the subject of greenhouse gases, claims and counter claims as to cause, and a wealth of correlation based information we have that if we do not act on may cost us the planet one day. http://reddit.com/info/ri3l/comments And you do recall that we went on for decade after decade with the evidence, in the from of correlation that tobacco use caused cancer and respiratory and circulatory diseases. No cause based research was allowed to be looked at clearly...and that because of manufactures campaign to thwart such research. In the end people finally got fed up with them and passed a law that required a warning on packs of cigarettes based on ONLY the understand we had through correlation. Of course, once action was taken researchers were emboldened to put forward they research that clearly showed cause. Yet, and oddly, it's still debated. So in the matter of human learning, if we continue to refuse to accept the massive amounts of data collected through studies that show correlation, we will continue to have poor and worse outcomes in human development because of the persistent use of pain to teach children. The arguments about correlation not being cause grow tedious because even scientists recognize that while that is strictly true when you have sufficient volume, and continued results over time in correlation that point to the same outcome you have sufficient reason to believe causation is at work. What the naysayers attempt to peddle is the that anyone that points to correlation as proof are actually attempting 'silly correlation.' A typical attempt by the naysayers is the attack the reasoning in there being a highly significant correlation between levels of intensity of corporal punishment and bad outcomes, such as violent criminals having a high rate of having been subjected to corporal punishment. The argument comes up "that they all drank milk as children." The latter, of course, is the "silly correlation." Milk rarely causes pain and confusion and distracts from learning. It doesn't bruise, break bones or leave a psychological impact on the drinker. Correlation if the kind serious researchers find can be and is an important tool for decision making and policy as well as law. In fact much law is bases on understanding of correlation. A law against the use of corporal punishment against children that is patterned after the same law against it that calls it "assault" against adults makes sense on this basis. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Correlation is not cause
Stop exposing you STUPIDITY, Kane! Doan On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Nor is correlation a useless model. If we waited around to make decisions until causation proved something we'd be in the stone age still. We work from clues and hints that correlation gives us. We operate everyday on this operational principle. Do you know every function and element of your automobile and have information at your fingertips about what "causes" it to run and move at your command? Of course not. You have a trust, a hint, a clue, that when you do certain things events will take place predictably. That is a correlation. Studies on human learning are similar. And as we have more and better tools for examining brain function, for instance, we move closer to cause based models for research in this subject. Our current knowledge has shown us that while pain can motivate, it also can interfere in learning efforts. And it can and does carry unwanted side effects that other, non-pain based learning models do not have. It would be an extreme rarity for a learner to develop fear or anxiety toward the teacher if nothing punitive was going on in the learning process, while we know that fear and anxiety play a considerable role in a relationship, and by the learner toward the teacher when pain, physical or mental, is applied by that teacher to the learner. Eventually it comes down to choosing pain to teach when the teacher is frustrated and thwarted at the failure of the learner to learn. Is the fault in the learner and needs to be painfully extracted from them, or is the real fault in the teacher who lacks the knowledge and will to learn and apply non-pain based methods of teaching? On Correlation A little resource material on the issues of correlation vs causation in the real world. How long did we used fire before we understood it as physicists? Here, for instance is a typical conversation on the subject of greenhouse gases, claims and counter claims as to cause, and a wealth of correlation based information we have that if we do not act on may cost us the planet one day. http://reddit.com/info/ri3l/comments And you do recall that we went on for decade after decade with the evidence, in the from of correlation that tobacco use caused cancer and respiratory and circulatory diseases. No cause based research was allowed to be looked at clearly...and that because of manufactures campaign to thwart such research. In the end people finally got fed up with them and passed a law that required a warning on packs of cigarettes based on ONLY the understand we had through correlation. Of course, once action was taken researchers were emboldened to put forward they research that clearly showed cause. Yet, and oddly, it's still debated. So in the matter of human learning, if we continue to refuse to accept the massive amounts of data collected through studies that show correlation, we will continue to have poor and worse outcomes in human development because of the persistent use of pain to teach children. The arguments about correlation not being cause grow tedious because even scientists recognize that while that is strictly true when you have sufficient volume, and continued results over time in correlation that point to the same outcome you have sufficient reason to believe causation is at work. What the naysayers attempt to peddle is the that anyone that points to correlation as proof are actually attempting 'silly correlation.' A typical attempt by the naysayers is the attack the reasoning in there being a highly significant correlation between levels of intensity of corporal punishment and bad outcomes, such as violent criminals having a high rate of having been subjected to corporal punishment. The argument comes up "that they all drank milk as children." The latter, of course, is the "silly correlation." Milk rarely causes pain and confusion and distracts from learning. It doesn't bruise, break bones or leave a psychological impact on the drinker. Correlation if the kind serious researchers find can be and is an important tool for decision making and policy as well as law. In fact much law is bases on understanding of correlation. A law against the use of corporal punishment against children that is patterned after the same law against it that calls it "assault" against adults makes sense on this basis. Kane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
The Question. How can a parent that choses to spank know precisely, before the line is crossed, where the line actually is between safe non-injurious discipline, and abusive injury? Answer? See below. http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO http://tinyurl.com/2caeoz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
If correlation is not a valid model for research why would one argue
against such research on the details as they were relevant to argue against? Wouldn't the correct and intelligent, non-stupid response be to simply point out the research did not "cause" model based methodology? http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO http://tinyurl.com/2sb9uw Some one apparently wishes to treat correlation as relevant. 0:-] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of
context that another researcher praised the work in some way?. Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the following information, Eh? Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views. Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from Doan the Brilliiant was forthcoming. Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children: " This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne. Doan Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing, but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different about the Baurinds work in this very case. Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of his claim right out of a complete sentence. Straus: " I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" Stupid? Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do this and be so easily caught at it then run away. Mmmm...you decide. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...2b936e7155ad33 http://tinyurl.com/3cnrhu From: 0:- - view profile Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 6:59 pm Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services Carlson LaVonne wrote: If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not. This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study in light of the conclusions. LaVonne Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth. It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is what he had to say in total: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm "I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several reporters after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions: 1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79 cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she has split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and 8 cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off. Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given, they would they show that, although the differences are not significant because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking, the worse the outcome for the child. " ... More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented critically and negatively on Straus' work. Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children. In fact, much of her presentation, http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn propaganda ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come to defend them. The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive, but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA, and academic and liberal location. In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research' was almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent - child interactions. http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf .... "The study I will discuss today was designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on child outcomes." ... One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time? And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods suggested by the age groupings? And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it for peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication has happened. We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it. A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did NOT in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes that practice of spanking. No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her correctly: http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf "First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the FSP sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of physical punishment was normative for that population." If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking advocate. Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study by finding her description of what is and isn't normative. One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and well inside the legal limitations. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kane exposing his STUPIDITY again Stupidity
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of context that another researcher praised the work in some way?. Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the following information, Eh? Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views. Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from Doan the Brilliiant was forthcoming. Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children: " This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne. Doan Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing, but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different about the Baurinds work in this very case. Which part of "excellent" don't you understand, Kane? Notice that my challenge to Lavonne went unanswered? Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of his claim right out of a complete sentence. Straus: " I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" Stupid? "her study is excellent" Do you understand English, Kane? You just exposed your STUPIDITY again! ;-) Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do this and be so easily caught at it then run away. Mmmm...you decide. Come on, people. Who here agree with Kane? ;-) Doan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of
context that another researcher praised the work in some way?. Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the following information, Eh? Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views. Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from Doan the Brilliant was forthcoming. Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children: " This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne. Doan Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing, but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different about the Baurinds work in this very case. Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of his claim right out of a complete sentence. Straus: " I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" Stupid? Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do this and be so easily caught at it then run away. Mmmm...you decide. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...2b936e7155ad33 http://tinyurl.com/3cnrhu From: 0:- - view profile Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 6:59 pm Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services Carlson LaVonne wrote: If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not. This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study in light of the conclusions. LaVonne Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth. It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is what he had to say in total: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm "I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several reporters after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions: 1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79 cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she has split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and 8 cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off. Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given, they would they show that, although the differences are not significant because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking, the worse the outcome for the child. " ... More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented critically and negatively on Straus' work. Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children. In fact, much of her presentation, http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn propaganda ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come to defend them. The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive, but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA, and academic and liberal location. In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research' was almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent - child interactions. http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf ..... "The study I will discuss today was designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on child outcomes." ... One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time? And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods suggested by the age groupings? And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it for peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication has happened. We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it. A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did NOT in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes that practice of spanking. No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her correctly: http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf "First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the FSP sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of physical punishment was normative for that population." If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking advocate. Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study by finding her description of what is and isn't normative. One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and well inside the legal limitations. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
If correlation is not a valid model for research why would one argue
against such research on the details as if it was a relevant study to argue against? Wouldn't the correct, and intelligent, non-stupid response be to simply point out the research did not employ a "cause" model based methodology? http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO http://tinyurl.com/2sb9uw Some one apparently wishes to treat correlation as relevant. 0:-] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
The Question. How can a parent that choses to spank know precisely, before the line is crossed, where the line actually is between safe non-injurious discipline, and abusive injury? Answer? See below. http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO http://tinyurl.com/2caeoz |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidity
How can one so stupid think it could
recognize stupidity in the first place? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | Spanking | 5 | November 9th 05 01:51 PM |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | General | 2 | November 9th 05 01:48 PM |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 2 | November 9th 05 01:48 PM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |
Length of gestation: correlation between pregnancies? | Tiina Kartovaara | Pregnancy | 11 | August 22nd 03 11:56 AM |