i would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson, but i suppose in the interim you have again filled your head with a false sense of intellectual superiority. your erroneous use of the term "ad hominem" illustrates just how much your head has been filled. i committed no fallacy in rejecting your arguments based on any irrelevant fact about you.
fact: you did not fully read the entire article before jumping to a completely erroneous conclusion. an attribute you are known for. the article was written by a journalist, not the researchers themselves. and, the journalist clearly cautions the reader about the conclusions of the study.
fact: you have neither the experience, education nor credentials to question the research of anyone with so much as an associates degree. just because someone in your family or your buddies pats you on the head and gives you a cookie everytime you say something semi intelligent does not make you an expert in any field.
fact: you did not read the actual research document before jumping to the conclusion that the research was flawed. your opinion was based solely on a quick perusal of what you considered key points in the article written by a journalist.
fact: there have been many studies of various sizes since the introduction of television and they have all had similar conclusions from the researchers. it just so happens this particular research was conducted on three separate groups of children of the same age from similar socio economic backgrounds in controlled settings, exactly as it should have been.
unfortunately for you, that phd puts her eons ahead of you in the field of psychology, especially child psychology. that is not a fallacy rejection of your argument based on irrelevant facts about you, it is simply fact.
Where did I attack those studies and their results? You have confused my criticism of the study conducted by Dr. Christakis and the criticism of its results and that of other studies.
You have jumped to a conclusion that was unfortunately false. Furthermore, your statement that the similar socioeconomic backgrounds was a correct method is utterly false. The samples in a correctly executed clinical trial are randomized. These were not randomized, therefore the study is compromised. Also, you have still not answered my question about long-term testing.
The comment on my lack of education is psychology is pointless- I did not say that Lillard was right or wrong. I said that besides her degree in the field, she has little else to offer in this debate. Also, the principles of clinical testing can be known by anyone, be they psychologist, entomolgist, ichthyologist, botantist, or high school student. I was referring to how her endorsement of the claim is frivolous; there was no mention of any other opinion by any other psychologist. Her PhD. in psychology does not make her any more of an authority on the subject than any other PhD. With so many PhD.'s out there, it would be foolish to argue that Lillard's opinion is in any way representative of them all.
in typical fashion you completely failed to comprehend something that is easily understood by anyone who took the time to actually read the entire passage.
How is
this not a dismissal of my point based on the flawed assumption that I did not read the article because I am somehow intellectually inferior?
Where is my claim of intellectual superiority? If anything, you have made one:
I would have thought the last time you tried to argue with me taught you a lesson
Thus far, you have falsely accused me of:
- Claiming knowledge of psychology when I have not done anything more than pointed out the holes in a study, which is something that anyone could do
- Not comprehending written information while completely misunderstanding my clearly worded point.
- Making a claim of intellectual superiority while simultaneously making such a claim yourself.
Not only that, but you have dodged many of my questions as well:
- What long-term effects were there?
- Why were the groups not random?
- Why would a well respected psychologist release such a flawed study?
Finally, using your insults and my young age you have cleverly constructed a strawman argument in which I am somehow incapable of understanding why small*, homogeneous** samples tested without a baseline***against which to judge them would compromise a scholarly study.
-Penguin
*With only sixty kids, one wildcard result can make an even split a statstically significant finding.
**Homogeneous samples make the study too specific, and leave those who did not fit the description without any ground to take action.
***With no baseline, the possibility that all the kids in both groups acted the way they did all the time.
EDIT: Spelling error
EDIT: I don't appreciate the insults.
