Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:34:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Monika Trzcinska <054470@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: let's hear some opinions
              13 Dec 1992 21:18:42 -0800 from <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

Tor,
I think that generally we agree...

I was taught that having statistically significant results does not always
mean that these results are meaningful...but having meaningful results means
that they are also statistically significant.
By giving the example I wanted to show that doing stats at all times isn't
always necessary, because by doing so we may be ignoring the true phenomenon
at hand.  If you have the time (that is a funny statement for grad students
:-)) read Robert.C. Boles "Why you should avoid statistics." Biol Psychiatry,
1988, vol.23, pages 79-85.

The author describes 6 rules, and although I do not agree with all of them,
they definitely makes us think:

Rule 1:  Look for things that are obvious.
Rule 2:  Do not use control groups.
Rule 3:  Test ridiculous hypotheses.
Rule 4:  What you want to do in research is "measure things".
Rule 5:  Look at the data, rather than statistics.
Rule 6:  Talk to Buddha.

Regarding my research:  It took my over a year and a half to plow through
the theoretical and practical issues related to my research, and believe me
that taking an undergrad under my wings and re-explaining to him/her from
the scratch and then (oh my God!) living them alone with my animals is
completely unthinkable, not only because of time constraints, but also because
I was taught to be responsible for my experiments.  It is extremely difficult
to obtain the behaviour that I seek, it is there, but it is masked by seizures
and motor effects, as well, as the whole array of parameters.  If a novice
student would make a mistake, I would be paying for it for a long time.
Hence, I have nothing against training someone to apply the techniques (in
fact I did that several times), but living them with my research is way to
risky to me at this stage of the game.  In terms of "peer review" I have no
problem with that, because 99% of these individuals have gone though, what
I have gone through, and they fully understand what this is all about.
In fact, I got commended by a core researcher in the field while he was
reviewing my paper for publication, who said that he wanted to congratulate
me because he was never persistent enough to stick with the research and
abandoned it eventually.

Maybe doing a TOTALLY independent research is a fallacy, but there is a real
distinction between fixing the electrical equipment, running the subjects,
racking one's brains whether to do regression or ANOVA with these data,
going to a Harvard Graphics and SPSSX tutorial so to be able to present
statistically and graphically to the best of one's abilities, as opposed to
calling the technician, hiring someone to run the subjects, calling the
statistician and maybe even a typist once everything is "regurgitated" for
us, since dealing with all these bloody word perfect commands, which can
easily spot any errors, is so time consuming and "unnecessary".
(Sarcasm intended).  Do not get me wrong Tor, I realize that in some areas
of research getting some help is vital, but then again there is also plain
laziness and lack of profesionalism...


                                 _
    ) (    Monika Trzcinska    _- o   ) (   054470@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
   )   (----------------------- o o  )   (----------------------------
    ) (                        -_ o   ) (
                                 -
   "The most important attitude that can be formed is that of a desire
    to go on learning".
                                                  Dewey (1938)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU