[R] Hello!

[Mike Marchywka]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:31:57 -0800
[[elided Hotmail spam]]
> From: jwiley.psych at gmail.com
> To: marchywka at hotmail.com
> CC: r-help at r-project.org
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Mike Marchywka  wrote:
> > I can probably find more "negative" ones if you are interested LOL :)
> > I was hoping to find another interesting technical conversation
> > to which I could contribute a few thoughts but subjective matters
> > do come up with statistical analysis and confirmation bias, rationalization,
> > the "power of positive thinking", believing in your data when you
> > should be testing it,  is often the biggest problem to getting
> > accurate perspective especially with post hoc analysis questions
> > as often come up here. Look at some ongoing discussions about scientific
> > literature and you find all kinds of problems with failure to publish negative
> > results, including clinical drug trials. The power of "positive" thinking,
> > seeing what you want to see, wastes a lot of other people's time. You only need to spend
> > a few days trying to replicate "positive" results, or just integrate
> > them into your understanding of a complex system like a living organism,
> >  or buy a few hyped securities to understand how bug this problem really is.
>
> I realize Ulysses was riddled with elaborate enigmas and subtle
> references (though Bert and Ravi must have hated the ending), so I
> tried to examine this paragraph from multiple angles, but I keep
> coming back to, "Huh?"


Well, the OP, besides criticizing one post in particular,
criticized the list for being "too negative" or similar
nebulous words to that effect. Not really sure what caused him to formulate
that conclusion but as I mentioned in my private reply( you didn't
yet clarify the "huh" question LOL) , I've been
pursing a jihad against words that have no meaning, usually adjectives
where numbers would make more sense. In this case, by "positive" I assumed
he should have said "accurate" as making something "positive" by some
person's perspective usually just means someone else has to waste a lot
of time figuring out the reality of a given conclusion. In one
common usage, a "positive" unreproducible result is often published without the
context of all the negative ones. Optimistic "positive" adjectives are usually
inserted to boost a given perspective with no justification. 
Again, the ways in which insidious "positive" adjectives waste the time of others
is hard to state clearly in a terse post as there are many, many,many,
like humnguous ways that strings of adjectives are used instead of numbers
and it can be a total distraction for sure :) Did you buy a house in the US a few years
ago based on more "positive" valuations than careful examination of fundamental
issues may have justified? 

Often simple questions about data, to the point of being snide maybe,
could offer more compelling explanations than " I took 3 data points, shopped
for a post hoc analysis method that someone on the internet said was proper
that gave me the most positive result and I published that one." Questions
come up here quite a bit that may "best" be answered with statements the OP
would label as "negative."



>
> >
> > I personally
> > question the utility of the post you cite but I often post things
> > in a hurry and make stupid statements myself ( and I don't let money
> > change that LOL). You can only type "see the posting guidelines" so
> > many times. Punctuation problems can make things hard to read etc.
> > I really wouldn't take it that "negatively" whatever that means.