I Think the Study Needed a Few More Subjects and a Better Reporter
First, read this, it isn’t very long.
Now that you’re back, a study of Email lying that includes a whopping 48 people makes the NYTimes?
Just how do the authors draw the conclusions from the data? I never took statistics; but, there doesn’t seem to be any correlation between the data and the conclusions stated by the authors. Just what non-verbal and behavioral cues does handwriting give that Email doesn't?
There are more obvious problems with the story. I’ll leave it with this is a really poor job of reporting what appears to be a very poorly structured study.
7 comments:
So Dave, how long is this double suspension anyway?
Debo
Ended about a minute after it started.
This is the dumbest study ever
Dave, I E-mailed my response to you. OK I really didn't. But I will. No I lied. But the intent to be truthful was there. I should have been in this study. Or in political office...But I am married to Morgan Freeman urr I mean Morgan Fairchild. Yeah thats the ticket.
Can you tell business is really slow at the old bonding company tonight?
It's the NYT, what do you expect, journalism?
I'd be inclined to attribute the whole phenomenon to "poor keystrokes" and leave at that!
This study was probably paid for by a research grant from the federal government. Our tax dollars at work once again.
Post a Comment