Coburn wants to cut the NSF

[Jack21222]

If you're unwilling to read the report being discussed - how can you offer an opinion?

Because I'm not responding to the report. I'm responding to YOU.

 

[Al68]

That's why we leave it up to a panel of experts, and not a politician, to make the decision.

How democratic! :uhh:

 

[WhoWee]

Because I'm not responding to the report. I'm responding to YOU.

This thread discusses a report that you won't read and yet you have an opinion in response to my comments about the article cited? I respectfully suggest you read the report (subject of the thread) before offering any additional response - to ME or any other post.

 

[Jack21222]

This thread discusses a report that you won't read and yet you have an opinion in response to my comments about the article cited? I respectfully suggest you read the report (subject of the thread) before offering any additional response - to ME or any other post.

I have an opinion about YOUR response. I have NO opinion about the report. I'm not claiming to have an opinion about the report. Again, if you don't want to expound on your thoughts, why are you here?

YOU (maybe the report as well, I don't know, but YOU) seem to think that the research quoted is a waste of time, but you refuse to state why. When I simply pointed out that neither of us are social psychologists, you called me rude, which is a complete non-sequitur.

I don't know where you expect me to find the time to read a 76 page government report in order to respond to your thoughts, nor do I see how it could possibly be a prerequisite. You made a statement, back it up. If the research you quoted isn't worthwhile, let's hear why.

I'm sorry, you don't have to respond to this post, I'll do it for you.

WhoWee: Just read the report

 

[WhoWee]

I have an opinion about YOUR response. I have NO opinion about the report. I'm not claiming to have an opinion about the report. Again, if you don't want to expound on your thoughts, why are you here?

YOU (maybe the report as well, I don't know, but YOU) seem to think that the research quoted is a waste of time, but you refuse to state why. When I simply pointed out that neither of us are social psychologists, you called me rude, which is a complete non-sequitur.

I don't know where you expect me to find the time to read a 76 page government report in order to respond to your thoughts, nor do I see how it could possibly be a prerequisite. You made a statement, back it up. If the research you quoted isn't worthwhile, let's hear why.

I'm sorry, you don't have to respond to this post, I'll do it for you.

WhoWee: Just read the report

Again, there's no reason to be rude. I did read the report and find it humorous that you won't - yet YOU still offer an opinion on my interpretation of the contents? What do I need to support? I contend that any Government allocation of $3,000,000,000 should be closely scrutinized - your reluctance to even read the report speaks volumes about any potential problems - again IMO.

 

[Birkeland]

Again, there's no reason to be rude. I did read the report and find it humorous that you won't - yet YOU still offer an opinion on my interpretation of the contents? What do I need to support? I contend that any Government allocation of $3,000,000,000 should be closely scrutinized - your reluctance to even read the report speaks volumes about any potential problems - again IMO.

Alright, out of sheer boredom while my students were taking a final, I read the report. All it shows it that Coburn has no idea how multi-year grants work, and like much of the country thinks everything should be summarized in on sentence.

Here is a quote from the "report", or as I like to call it, witch hunt. The study is question aims to find out if girls and boys are pre-wired to play with dolls and trucks respectively, or if it is a case of social imprinting.

The scientist in charge of both studies, Gerianne Alexander, reported that “no one has taught them to go for this toy or that, yet they gravitated to the toys we see human children typically choose. The possibility that there are features of toys that are innately attractive to male and females was reinforced with our human infant subjects.”169

Here, scientists may have benefitted from talking to any new parent, since the research just confirmed what most new parents easily learn through casual observation. In fact, one new dad observed that his young son would get “so excited upon seeing any truck. A recent trip to a dealership to pick up some parts resulted in his insisting we visit the trucks and touch them. When I set him in the cab, he was probably one of the happiest kids alive.”170

I am very certain that the parents Mr. Coburn talked to are well versed in scientific principles of research. I'm sure that there were numerous controls that these parents placed on their children to make sure that their own actions were not influencing their children’s reactions.

It is incredibly easy to take any scientific study and summarize it in such a way that it sounds silly and pointless, for example let me take a shot at it.

“I find this research to be a waste of taxpayer money. This scientist proposes to use these “invisible” beams, and by shooting it at a piece of metal shows that the beams go through, but sometimes they don’t. I think Mr. Rutherford needs to consider if these imaginary beams are simply make believe”
Over the top? Quite possibly, but I find it hard to take seriously any report that makes comments such as this

Professor Schultze cautions that “the avatar is me, but not quite me.” She explains “the avatar is not quite me also means that you can deny actions or activities that you would consider morally questionable in real life—for example, infidelity. For someone who is married in real life, is having an intimate relationship in Second Life cheating or just fantasy?”205 Your tax dollars are answering these important questions.

Personally, given how digital the world has gone, I can see why these questions might be important, but apparently to some government officials they are just worth a sarcastic throw-away.

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, given how digital the world has gone, I can see why these questions might be important, but apparently to some government officials they are just worth a sarcastic throw-away.

I see your point - given the way politics work - this research may prove helpful: (from page 32 of the report - my bold)

"How do rumors get started? To answer the question, NSF has spent nearly $1 million to investigate. NSF provided the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) for $755,546 to study “rumor propagation.”
183 The RIT researchers explain, “Like infectious diseases, many rumors engender mistrust,
suspicion, and conflict between people groups; such rumors “survive”—even thrive—and are believed as fact despite well-meaning attempts to dispel them. How does this happen?” They further proclaim, “such knowledge is vital for the effective prevention of and response to harmful rumors, especially those that foster intergroup distrust, discord, and hostility.”
184
NSF provided a $7,500 grant to a Cornell University
researcher to study “network effects on the spread of rumor and misinformation.” The researcher
explains, “computer security experts, corporate executives, and political leaders all contend with separating rumor from verified information, and would welcome a systematic comparison of their diffusion processes.” The study utilizes an internet-based discussion tool, “Netscan,” to analyze internet messages.
185
NSF also provided $56,597 to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher to study “Rumors, Truths, and Reality: A Study of Political Misinformation.” The grant summary explains, “This project provides an experimental investigation of the effectiveness of different strategies to counter political rumors.”
186"

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, given how digital the world has gone, I can see why these questions might be important, but apparently to some government officials they are just worth a sarcastic throw-away.

Staying with current political events - Congressman Weiner may find this study very helpful (page 28):(my bold)

"Are people who post pictures on the Internet from the same place at the same time often socially connected? NSF has provided just over $2 million to researchers at Cornell University to produce a study concluding if people post pictures indicating they are often in the same place at the same time, they are probably friends or otherwise socially connected.
145

“It’s not that you know with certainty, but it’s a high likelihood that these people know each other,” one of the researchers told ScienceDaily.
146
He continued, “As expected, the probability increases as the analysis moves to smaller areas and shorter time spans.” The article’s title sums up the seemingly obvious conclusion: “Online Photos May Reveal Your Friendships.”
147
To arrive at this conclusion, the researchers analyzed 38 million photos uploaded to the Flickr photosharing website by about a half million people that were taken by GPS-equipped cameras or tagged by users with location data. They then compared this information to Flickr’s social networking service, which showed links between individuals.
148

“I think we’ve all wondered about questions like this, and there's an opportunity now to start making them precise,” one of the researchers concluded—and he wasn’t being tongue in cheek. “This paper is trying to begin that line of questioning.”
149"

Should we conclude that if the photos are of Congressman Weiner - he probably knows the culprit?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20067595-501465.html

 

[Jack21222]

WhoWee:

According to the poster who DID read the report, it had nothing to do with your implication that you know better the usefulness of social psychology research than a social psychologist.

Before you reply to this post, be sure to read 76 pages out of any Psych 101 textbook, or else I'll call you rude.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee:

According to the poster who DID read the report, it had nothing to do with your implication that you know better the usefulness of social psychology research than a social psychologist.

Before you reply to this post, be sure to read 76 pages out of any Psych 101 textbook, or else I'll call you rude.

Are you citing another poster's opinion - instead of reading the article cited in the OP? I think we should submit this thread to the NSF - maybe they can get $1Million to study our discussion?

 

[Jack21222]

Are you citing another poster's opinion - instead of reading the article cited in the OP? I think we should submit this thread to the NSF - maybe they can get $1Million to study our discussion?

And when I do read this report, and confirm that the other poster is correct, and you're sending me on wild goose chases to waste my time, how much will you compensate me for my time?

 

[WhoWee]

And when I do read this report, and confirm that the other poster is correct, and you're sending me on wild goose chases to waste my time, how much will you compensate me for my time?

Oh my - how much does Greg typically compensate you for participating on PF? I'm not certain I can afford your rate? PLEASE don't begin until we reach final agreement - fair enough?

 

[mege]

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-research-and-science-education-hearing-social-bahavioral-and-economic-science" (Thursday still where I am :p)

I would pay close attention to the http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/060211_Wood.pdf" gave for the subcommitte. He gave, imo, a very level approach to the situation pointing out that there are lots of politically-minded projects out there that should be cut before anything else.

I think this comment (in his third point) can server as a tl;dr:

If a researcher sets out on a program of historical, humanistic, or interpretive study, however, the NSF is probably not the best source of funding.

 

[Al68]

Oh my - how much does Greg typically compensate you for participating on PF?

I get $10 per word posted myself, which explains why I post a lot. Of course if I ramble on too much, he docks my pay accordingly. Not sure if I'll get any credit for this post, but it's worth a shot.

 

[WhoWee]

I get $10 per word posted myself, which explains why I post a lot. Of course if I ramble on too much, he docks my pay accordingly. Not sure if I'll get any credit for this post, but it's worth a shot.

Can I have the number of your agent?