It takes about 6 weeks for the effects of prescribed Zoloft to kick in, so doing the 50mg of Zoloft (a pretty low dose) painting after 2 weeks is pointless.
Agreed. Paremedics have a duty of care to attend to people in medical emergencies whether they are normal weight or obese. They should be protected from back injuries from attempting to lift such heavy people.
A statistical data set does not necessarily speak for itself. Interpretation can make all the difference. What I see in the linked article is an author with an obvious bias attempting to take existing data and make it fit his own agenda. He admits that the effect size for predicting vocation is not as powerful as it could be and so resorts to exchanging the analysis for character traits to resolve the problem. I admit that he makes a seemingly logical justification as to why he did so, however there are several problems that remain. The first is that we are not provided with any standards by which these character traits were assigned (we know they came from biographies, but what standards were set in place?). The second is that the data is not presented appropriately but rather dumbed down (e.g. referring to odds and probabilities rather than providing a table of p values so that the reader may view the results for him/herself. Instead we must take the author’s word for his interpretation of the data.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html “Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses.”
@Chels As for the psychological aspect of astrology, I personally would recommend reading up on research in social psychology concerning the Barnum effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/self/gogh.self-orsay.jpg
Agreed. Paremedics have a duty of care to attend to people in medical emergencies whether they are normal weight or obese. They should be protected from back injuries from attempting to lift such heavy people.
A statistical data set does not necessarily speak for itself. Interpretation can make all the difference. What I see in the linked article is an author with an obvious bias attempting to take existing data and make it fit his own agenda. He admits that the effect size for predicting vocation is not as powerful as it could be and so resorts to exchanging the analysis for character traits to resolve the problem. I admit that he makes a seemingly logical justification as to why he did so, however there are several problems that remain. The first is that we are not provided with any standards by which these character traits were assigned (we know they came from biographies, but what standards were set in place?). The second is that the data is not presented appropriately but rather dumbed down (e.g. referring to odds and probabilities rather than providing a table of p values so that the reader may view the results for him/herself. Instead we must take the author’s word for his interpretation of the data.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
“Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses.”
@Chels
As for the psychological aspect of astrology, I personally would recommend reading up on research in social psychology concerning the Barnum effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect