On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:57 AM, polar <
pol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, our perspectives apparently differ (and not only ours I imagine). While
> you are
> talking about primate games, I wasnt (but could) talk about narcissism.
> You want to threat with jail people,
As far as I know, refusal to comply with a FOIA request is not a
criminal but a civil matter. And as I've already pointed out, they
could easily simply say the data was never submitted or has been lost,
so even if it were a criminal charge*, there could be no real threat
of jail here.
* it's really too bad that it isn't, the FOIA has done *amazing*
things for good governance and exposing corruption and crime in the
USA, even with government agencies scoffing at it
> who IN YOUR OPINION have some data
Not in my opinion. *They themselves wrote up the paper saying the
results were not statistically-significant*. Seriously, what the fuck,
Pontus? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about here? What, you
think I made up the existence of this data or this study? Hallucinated
or guessed it or something? 'My opinion'? Nothing to do with my
opinion, they told the world all about it.
> that COULD be in line with your (unscientific and one-sided btw) view, that
> brain training is "worthless".
Not could be, are. And my view is looking at this point to be far more
scientific than theirs.
It's funny that you claim my view that brain training is worthless
when it is the default assumption given the utter failure of all past
such research and literally the last study posted to this group was a
failure to find any meaningful transfer to grades or exams!
> You are right, that scientist are mostly paid by public (except private
> foundations,
> and except when they pay themselves).
Indeed.
> Btw usually its pretty small money and
> you always do a lot more work that you are paid for. Regarding your
> "oversupply
> wanabe scientist" - I'm really sorry, pardon me, but these always have at
> least
> the skill you have.
So? Did I ever say I was far more skilled than them? What does that
have to do with anything?
Shouldn't your reply have been something relevant to what I said, like
"actually, there are not hundreds of postdocs vying for every position
and desperate pressures to publish sexy research by means fair and
foul, despite the common beliefs and all evidence, and here's why..."?
Why the ad hominems?
> Btw I'm not putting energy into reviewing your
> metaanalyses,
> but I will not accept any of your conclusions, until they pass rigorous
> peer-reviewed
> process (both statistically and commonsensically) in some impacted journal,
'La la la la I can't hear you!'
I think it's very telling that - though I've been working on the
meta-analysis for more than a year now, have discussed it in detail,
and the results should be of *extreme* interest to anyone interested
in DNB - you have not read it.
> let alone because I know of your strong and long bias against N-back.
I did not start biased against N-back (feel free to go back and read
my early posts), reading the research and meta-analyzing the results
changed my views. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?"
> With what I dont agree, is the notion that anybody can get a grant. No,
> maybe
> one fifth or one tenth of applications will get it - as I said, only the
> very best
> scientist with serious relevant experiences and a excellent research plan.
Or the ones with the sexiest (==least likely to be true) results.
> And one more thing - I'm not some crazy constructivist relativist, but
> science really
> is done by people, and you can never take human aspect out of it -
> fortunately.
> Of course I am not advocating manipulating data or not publishing it.
Really? Because that seems to be exactly what you're defending here.
> I just want to say, that people (and scientist) do gestures of good will for
> each other
> every day, that are not enforceable by asertivity (nor law of course). And
> without
> respect (which includes not threatening one with jail for some small data
> that
> maybe exist, and maybe were not and wont be published) you will lose
> respect.
What is the point of 'respect' if you cannot get what you need?
Fortunately, I have no skin in the game and I do not fear "losing
respect" since Jaeggi or Nisbett or Buschkuehl will never be reviewing
a grant application or paper of mine or sitting on a committee judging
me.
> But maybe you crave every piece of your contemporary "public rights" and
> "open-source-dictature" for your metaanalyses so much,
And you resort to name calling again, ignoring the stakes. Here's a
question for you, Pontus: brain-training has been running for
something like a decade now. In that decade, how many millions in
revenue have been collectively consumed by Cogmed, Luminosity, Jungle
Memory, Brain Twister, etc? Remembering the critical letter we
discussed here in 2011 or 2010 or so which mentioned that these
companies were charging school districts hundreds or thousands of
dollars per student per year?
> that one shitty old
> piece
> of some data from maybe 30 people
It's 30 more than I had before.
> is worth threatening some "manipulative
> scientist".
Releasing data which favors your cause and not data which does not
favor your cause is the epitome of manipulativeness.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net