> Why do the researcher see this as being plausible?  It seems much more 
> likely to me that the kids who (will eventually) have the fewest 
> behavioral problems are the ones who are most likely to display an "acute 
> reaction" to guilt.

Well, either the researchers were unaware of the difference between 
correlation and causation (which is taught in introductory level 
statistics), or a website named blogs.howstuffworks.com isn't accurately 
conveying the conclusions drawn by the study.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> ...and others because they are being 
> funded by some company that wants a certain result.  A shame really.

It's always taken as a given that if company/interest X pays for a 
study, it will invariably be skewed or completely biased in their 
favour.  While it says a lot about presumed human motivation and 
virtuousness (or lack thereof), a question arises in my mind:  *is* it 
always (or even most often) the case?  Are we all just corrupt, petty 
entities?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

> Well, either the researchers were unaware of the difference between 
> correlation and causation (which is taught in introductory level 
> statistics), or a website named blogs.howstuffworks.com isn't accurately 
> conveying the conclusions drawn by the study.

Yeah, I found an abstract of the study...
After doing the short "how guilty did the kid feel about
breaking the toy" test, they broke the kids into a
control group and a group that recieved "effortful control"
training, the guilty feeling kids in the control
group did as good later as the kids getting training,
but the kids that didn't feel guilty in the control group
were more likely to have problems than the trained
kids.

So they really proved it both ways. The kids that
have guilt by nature don't need the guilt trips, but
the un-guilty kids improved from repeated exposure
to guilt.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> It's always taken as a given that if company/interest X pays for a 
> study, it will invariably be skewed or completely biased in their 
> favour.  While it says a lot about presumed human motivation and 
> virtuousness (or lack thereof), a question arises in my mind:  *is* it 
> always (or even most often) the case?  Are we all just corrupt, petty 
> entities?

Someone should pay for a study to find out...

;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
>  *is* it always (or even most often) the case?  

That would be another example. It's not *always* the case. But then, would a 
company fund a study and then publish the results if it actually went 
against them? As in, there are 1000 things you could study about your 
product. Why would you fund a study that has a good probability of putting 
your product in a bad light? By the time you do the study, you already have 
a *pretty* good idea of how it's likely to come out, or you wouldn't fund 
the study.

And of course, if you fund a study about (say) the quality of your printers, 
and you find out that your printer is only meh compared to the competition, 
why would you publish that study?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt 
> teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel 
> guilt.

  I think the latin for that is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt 
>> teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel 
>> guilt.
> 
>   I think the latin for that is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
> 

Close but "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ;-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
>>   I think the latin for that is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
> Close but "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ;-)

I think those are actually two different fallacies.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt 
> >> teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel 
> >> guilt.
> > 
> >   I think the latin for that is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
> > 

> Close but "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ;-)

  "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "since that event followed this one,
that event must have been caused by this one".

  "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" means that correlation between two variables
does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

  In this particular case I think the latter fits better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "since that event followed this one,
> that event must have been caused by this one".
> 
>   "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" means that correlation between two variables
> does not automatically imply that one causes the other.
> 
>   In this particular case I think the latter fits better.
> 

I stand corrected. As is obvious ... IANAL. :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message