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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" Really? Here is the actual quotes: Doan: He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play. Kane: "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain actually works and the power of learning through modeling. This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. " Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-) Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post all our argument on this issue. Why is that? Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he did no such thing." don't you understand? Which part to you not understandin the context of what I said next? Is that how to win and argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and clarification? It's cleary how you dodge the issues. You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play." I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I said "Actually he did no such thing." That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was NOT punishment in my book. Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive lying. Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms, which of course you are avoiding. Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"! You are a proven LIAR! ;-) No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such thing. Sit and Watch, as I explained later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' IN the study methods describe by HIM he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.' If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." How much longer are you going to lie about this? 0:- No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. In which context is "he did no such thing."? The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged it. I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it we have established months ago I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did. I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. Obviously by my standards. And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before using to reduce the likelihood of "punishment" reaction. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely. By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that might appear as punishment, but not to mine. I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases. Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the larger discussion. In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself, as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying. LOL! Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense? Doan Kane |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more monkeyboy lies: More LIES from Kane If you want todiscuss something I feel is relevant
On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" Really? Here is the actual quotes: Doan: He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play. Kane: "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain actually works and the power of learning through modeling. This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. " Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-) Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post all our argument on this issue. Why is that? Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he did no such thing." don't you understand? Which part do you not understand in the context of what I said next? Is that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and clarification? Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) It's cleary how you dodge the issues. You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play." And you said: "he did no such thing." I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I said "Actually he did no such thing." So you disagree with him so you claimed "he did no such thing."??? You are speaking for Dr. Embry? In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play. And Dr. Embry called that procedure PUNISHMENT! That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was NOT punishment in my book. So you said "he did no such thing"??? What is this "thing" that he did not do? Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive lying. How delusional are you? Actually that perfectly would describe you! ;-) Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms, which of course you are avoiding. Because Embry said so! I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again. Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) And you said "he did no such thing"! You are a proven LIAR! ;-) No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' So what is it in Dr. Embry's mind? He did or he did not? In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.' But he called it PUNISHMENT did he not? If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is NOT coded as "punishment." So how many children were "grab, squeeze hard, and spanked"? That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment. So "he did no such thing"??? ;-) How much longer are you going to lie about this? You should ask yourself that! 0:- No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. In which context is "he did no such thing."? The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged it. So what is this "thing" that he did not do? I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did. I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly state, and obviously so, by my standards. He didn't do what? If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him? Because you said he didn't DO it. He did, just like I said: "prescribed punishment, using time-out for unsafe play." Did he not do that? The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:- The reason is it YOU that wish not to debate because you LIED! And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely. And he called it PUNISHMENT! Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely. By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards. What did Dr. Embry call it? I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases. You are not the one conducting the study, Dr. Embry was. The study said PUNISHMENT did it not? Then when you've given becca a copy, smirk try to convince here. I don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I gave away. Did you? How could I, I have to get one from my sock puppet first. ;-) How about Annafromdreamland? ;-0 Doan Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the larger discussion. In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself, as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying. LOL! Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense lies? Why do you think I call you "monkeyboy?" You jibber and screech, but you don't actually say much. Doan Kane |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feel isrelevant
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts you'll respond to. Or did you miss this one from me: ............................................ Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: What "LIES?" Where shall I begin? ;-) LIE #1: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. YOU are lying. LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan? I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-) Doan |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Doan wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts you'll respond to. Or did you miss this one from me: ............................................ Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: What "LIES?" Where shall I begin? ;-) LIE #1: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. YOU are lying. LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan? I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-) You never have before, and you haven't now. What inter library loan? One avaiable to the general public? Please clarify. By the way, have you any research available on the efficacy of CP/Spanking as an effective long term teaching strategy for parents? We've been waiting years, and nothing? And yes, there is plenty of material, one of which you have now, finally (liar), about none CP methods being more effective. And no, we won't provide it in some format you insist it much be in. When YOU provide real research on spanking's effectiveness your demands will be easily met. Because, Doan, there is no such thing, nor will there ever be. All use of pain and humiliation has been proven to be ineffective with other variables being MORE important overall to the responses of the subjects studied. Even Singapore is a case in point. What "works" there does not in other places. Spanking has been thoroughly discredited scientificially. You know it, I know it, and the majority of those that have posted in this ng in the past, knows it as well. That's why, you sad, silly, anachronistic holdout, they are gone and you have nothing left but harrassment. Rather childish harassment at that. All YOU can do now is harass people that come here wishing to rationally discuss current research. You've tried it again twice with current posts attempting to do just that. Do you know where the saying, "the bitter end" comes from? You, child, are at the end of your rope. The bitter end. Sorry 'bout that. 0;- Doan Kane |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feelis relevant
On 11 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts you'll respond to. Or did you miss this one from me: ............................................ Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: What "LIES?" Where shall I begin? ;-) LIE #1: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. YOU are lying. LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan? I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-) You never have before, and you haven't now. What inter library loan? One avaiable to the general public? Yes. Just go to any public library and ask. Are you saying that you were so stupid as to not know that? ;-) BTW, when was the AAA Foundation list these copies as "out of print"? I just checked with them and they said it has always been available. Can it be that you were "mistaken"? ;-) Doan |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
..
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
More LIES from Kane If you want to discuss something I feelis relevant
Heh! Kane spoke the truth for a change. ;-) Doan On 11 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: . |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Kane,
Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. In case you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making her own decisions. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly, just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. I am building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and what I am reading on my own. I have one question for you...well maybe two. You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something to that effect. In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. Quote:
Now for my second question :-) If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this experiment proved anything? Young Children mature and learn a LOT in 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll probably end up road kill. The fact that they parents were not consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size) For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote: Kane, Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. Some of your responses have influenced my opinion. In case you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making her own decisions. Yes. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly, just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division? I am building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and what I am reading on my own. Okay. It did not appear as though you were before. I have one question for you...well maybe two. You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something to that effect. That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things? No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful example and a valid experiment. http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad' (guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty small sample, even by Embry's standards. Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in situations were we weild such extraordinary power. I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We simply have so very much power. So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality. In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many years. I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to with terms such as "true." Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either side. 0:- Wrote: What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL, over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the workshop). Now for my second question :-) If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this experiment proved anything? By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed to be consistent in their actions. The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case. Young Children mature and learn a LOT in 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll probably end up road kill. Yes, that is true. And, the sample would all age at the same rate. And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product against other children how did not and the outcomes would be significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy? What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly apply the program. The fact that they parents were not consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size) Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments (and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational survey). The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it be a 'destructive' experiment. In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics. Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental studies. In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was destructive of the subjects. Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13 FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants. Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters. For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic. Oh brother. You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic? Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents. They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries. Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number of street entries came from? I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college and university library materials. If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems to think it's now easy to get. 0:- Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me? I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie. You wouldn't want that, now would you? -- beccafromlalaland Kane |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
The question you have been avoiding, Kane, is where in the study can you find data to back up your claim: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." IS THIS ANOTHER "MISTAKE"? In fact the actual study said NOTHING about spanking but reprimand. Here is the quotes: "While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward it." Here is another chance for you to rectify your "mistake", Kane. Do the honorable thing and apologize! ;-) Doan On 13 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: beccafromlalaland wrote: Kane, Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. Some of your responses have influenced my opinion. In case you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making her own decisions. Yes. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly, just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division? I am building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and what I am reading on my own. Okay. It did not appear as though you were before. I have one question for you...well maybe two. You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something to that effect. That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things? No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful example and a valid experiment. http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad' (guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty small sample, even by Embry's standards. Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in situations were we weild such extraordinary power. I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We simply have so very much power. So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality. In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many years. I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to with terms such as "true." Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either side. 0:- Wrote: What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL, over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the workshop). Now for my second question :-) If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this experiment proved anything? By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed to be consistent in their actions. The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case. Young Children mature and learn a LOT in 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll probably end up road kill. Yes, that is true. And, the sample would all age at the same rate. And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product against other children how did not and the outcomes would be significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy? What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly apply the program. The fact that they parents were not consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size) Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments (and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational survey). The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it be a 'destructive' experiment. In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics. Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental studies. In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was destructive of the subjects. Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13 FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants. Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters. For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic. Oh brother. You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic? Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents. They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries. Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number of street entries came from? I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college and university library materials. If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems to think it's now easy to get. 0:- Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me? I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie. You wouldn't want that, now would you? -- beccafromlalaland Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 29th 04 05:23 AM |
The regret mothers now feel ("Why are these parents not shocked over the pain?"): | Pointed Elbow | Pregnancy | 1 | October 9th 04 02:06 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | September 29th 04 05:17 AM |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |