Why do we still put people in prison?

[Togo]

Result of experiment using variable manipulation evaluated using inferential statistics. It is an experimentally determined effect. Cause is not at issue.

Of course it's an issue - it effects what statistical measures are valid to use, and what conclusions are valid to draw. You can't use non-correlational statistical analysis on a correlation, and you can't use a correlation to claim anything more than that two effects tend to co-occur for reasons that might unrelated to either one.

And you certainly can't use a fricking sex-linked characteristic and pretend you're only varying a single factor. Come on.

 

[fromderinside]

Result of experiment using variable manipulation evaluated using inferential statistics. It is an experimentally determined effect. Cause is not at issue.

And you certainly can't use a fricking sex-linked characteristic and pretend you're only varying a single factor. Come on.

Sure I can. I'm a psycho-physicist forcryingoutloud. I find ways to relate input to output all the time. And I know enough about intervening variables and control of experiments to ensure I've accounted for all sources of variation outside the ones I'm looking at as well as in my interpretation of said results.

Explicitly, I said examine effects of testosterone and estrogen on sexual activity. Believe me the subjects are under pharmaciological and electro-activity monitoring throughout whatever experiment I run and random factors such as biological clocks, race, social factors are are controlled or accounted for and explained in analysis and discussion. I always try to reduce the situation to one synapse in living thing experiments and I always relate my results to that one synapse focus. Otherwise normal appropriate laboratory and human tending processes are presumed and adhered to for the experiment.

We've been over all this before and you know I can't stomach five to seven synapse theoretical hand waving.

 

[Togo]

And you certainly can't use a fricking sex-linked characteristic and pretend you're only varying a single factor. Come on.

Sure I can. I'm a psycho-physicist forcryingoutloud. I find ways to relate input to output all the time. And I know enough about intervening variables and control of experiments to ensure I've accounted for all sources of variation outside the ones I'm looking at as well as in my interpretation of said results.

No, you really don't. Sex differences are a complex interaction of social, cultural, developmental and environmental influences covering everything from diet to conditional responses to eye-contact, all of which can interact with hormonal differences in both directions.

Explicitly, I said examine effects of testosterone and estrogen on sexual activity.

No, the topic was the effect of mothers disciplining their children.

Believe me the subjects are under pharmaciological and electro-activity monitoring throughout whatever experiment I run and random factors such as biological clocks, race, social factors are are controlled or accounted for and explained in analysis and discussion.

Not adequately.

You can't fit enough pharmaological monitoring into an experiment that adequately allows you draw conclusions about sub-populations of Los-Angeles whilst attempting to 'control for' sex difference.

I always try to reduce the situation to one synapse in living thing experiments and I always relate my results to that one synapse focus. Otherwise normal appropriate laboratory and human tending processes are presumed and adhered to for the experiment.

That's why they are inadequate to deal with this subject matter.

We've been over all this before and you know I can't stomach five to seven synapse theoretical hand waving.

Indeed so, but you keep on conveniently forgetting when you criticise social and cognitive psychologists for their less rigorous controls (accuracy), they are criticising you for your less rigorous approach to hypothesis formation (validity). The standards of validity you're used to using is not of a high enough standard to work in this area.

Or to put it another way, you can't just handwave sex differences, or reduce the sociological claim of 'mothers have trouble disciplining their children' to a simple one neurone experiment, without reducing the validity of your measure to such a low standard that no one will agree that your results have any real meaning.

That's the reason why professional scientists working in this area don't use your favoured approach.

 

[fromderinside]

No, you really don't. Sex differences are a complex interaction of social, cultural, developmental and environmental influences covering everything from diet to conditional responses to eye-contact, all of which can interact with hormonal differences in both directions.

You can't fit enough pharmaological monitoring into an experiment that adequately allows you draw conclusions about sub-populations of Los-Angeles whilst attempting to 'control for' sex difference.

Indeed so, but you keep on conveniently forgetting when you criticise social and cognitive psychologists for their less rigorous controls (accuracy), they are criticising you for your less rigorous approach to hypothesis formation (validity). The standards of validity you're used to using is not of a high enough standard to work in this area.

Or to put it another way, you can't just handwave sex differences, or reduce the sociological claim of 'mothers have trouble disciplining their children' to a simple one neurone experiment, without reducing the validity of your measure to such a low standard that no one will agree that your results have any real meaning.

That's the reason why professional scientists working in this area don't use your favoured approach.

You've made some criticism relating to whether I know anything about what I am saying.

I'm going to start with a short survey of my credentials based on professional output.

On Validity: https://scholar.google.com/citation...for_view=-woTMZQAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C&hl=en&oi=p

On pharmacological substance administration relating to behavior: https://scholar.google.com/citation...for_view=-woTMZQAAAAJ:Y0pCki6q_DkC&hl=en&oi=p

Two article demonstrating how theoretical advances are made in psychocaoustics

1. http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/51/2B/10.1121/1.1912888

2. https://scholar.google.com/citation...J&citation_for_view=-woTMZQAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C


Validity isn't a thing that gets more reliable with complexity. It is just does the thing measured reflect what it measures. Does testosterone and or estrogen impact behavior. Indeed. Does above or below average values of T and E change behavior from norms. Indeed. Etc.

Do I give a shit about a Chinese-Mexican-Angolan-Scottish male or female's changes of x amount of T or E from norms. Not really. I accommodate by taking a random sample of a sub-population and typifying it in the experiment description. then you would know the limits of my investigation re social-cultural-economic-age variables and you would handle my work visa vis your accordingly.

I define preferably a laboratory experiment where such as near by yelling, shooting, increase or decrease of participant in time frame, etc are controlled and note such in the experimental description relating it to precedents.

I assumed you would gather that from the direction I was going in my discussion to which you so graciously and callously responded.

BTW since the mid eighties I've been pretty actively involved in human modelling including performance modeling of well trained experts in time critical operations, reliability, validity work ranging from pilot-system operabiity to rivet hole size measurement and EEG validation of user keystroke learning which only demonstrate further experience into your validity failure pronouncements.

Yeah. I got mad. If you are going to critique a position you should first be sure what you are critiquing and with whom your are do so.

Believe me My position is based on more than generalizations. Those generalizations are founded on experience as well as a lot of academic study, reading, experiment, and review. This is merely as forum for discussion more or less informal discussion among persons with similar interests. It needn't' require justification of background for making such comment. In this case, as I said, you pissed me off.

I make my criticism of behavioral and cognitive experimentation and theory building having played in several areas including those of physiological, behavioral, aspects of cognitive psychology. Yes I'm grounded in a close to physiological analog of perceptual science, but, I've tested my instincts gained there in the area you defend. The generalizations I was taught then experienced are those that I repeat here.

I don't expect you to drop your inclinations. I do expect you to respect mine. If we ever agree we'll have a party.