… there are so many reports of relationships between oxytocin and social behaviors. It is impossible that not a single one of these effects is real. Isn’t it?
… there are so many reports of relationships between oxytocin and social behaviors. It is impossible that not a single one of these effects is real. Isn’t it?
Yeah, right. Next thing you’re gonna tell us is that the same dishonesty model applies to climate scientists and journalists who want their stuff published….
It’s a good post. It also points up the problem with meta analyses, namely publication bias.
One of the best discussions of the problems encountered with this type of research was in Watts Up with That relating to the difference between linear and non-linear systems and the common mistakes made with the mis-use of regression analyses. Climate “research” — if you can even call it that, is rife with it. The bottom line is that most naturally occurring systems are non-linear so trying to tease out the impact of a single variable (oxytocin, CO2) is maddeningly difficult. Never the less, the temptation to do so is strong and the scientific research establishment has yet to catch up with the implications, particularly the importance of publishing and recognizing the value of studies with negative outcomes.
Of course, when “conservatives” say marijuana cause insanity and criminality, they MUST be right.
“A recent meta-analysis co-authored by Larry Young, the scientist who made some of the most important discoveries relating oxytocin with social behavior in animals – estimated that the average statistical power (the chances of finding true effects if these truly exist) in oxytocin research is between 12% and 16%”
That statement, if true, condemns all those who “play” probability science to receive the meritorious Nobel prize for “participation”. We need a “Mann award” for dog shit hidden in dog shit…
Mike, I think you smoked the wrong sh1t, you sound insane!!!
S&S, yuppers, that about says it. If you ever learned how to set up studies, you would know them that you try and replicate the study by slight changes in the parameters.
Ummm, Mike
There is a reason why they call it “Dope”
I disagree with his conclusion that larger sample sizes are needed. That just magnifies the problem. With a large enough sample size even small differences are significant. The solution is better designed studies that are replicable. Studies that have a testable hypothesis from the beginning and not just throw a whole lot of variables at the wall and hope that some of them will stick.
I know Mike won’t read this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/reefer-madness-on-teens-and-pot-those-stars-you-see-are-asterisks/article27766258/
The cognitive dissonance! It burns!
Quoting GM as some kind of authority is un-effin real.
Are you a Justin fan, perchance?
I knew Mike wouldn’t read it.
“Of course, when “conservatives” say marijuana cause insanity and criminality, they MUST be right.”
Criminality and insanity? Might be true. My observation of the effects of marijuana is that it creates a lot of useless underachieving humanity. Mind you, these people may have had a pre-existing condition of being useless pieces of shit.
Post Normal Science.
with so any reports of witchcraft, there must be witches..
Burn the Witch.
Classic proof that liberalism is a progressive disease, an ever progressive mental disorder.
Boils down to; “I feel, therefor it must be true”.
Emotional retards allround.
“…creates a lot of useless underachieving humanity. Mind you, these people may have had a pre-existing condition of being useless pieces of shit…
really..??
Ya know, I work up North in Ft Mac as a Senior Manager…and it amazes me the utter & arrogant tripe some (_i_)holes will post…even here.