Re: CRASH CONTAGION

From: Wade Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 19:37:54 GMT

  • Next message: Joachim Maier: "RE: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA11468 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:42:39 GMT
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:37:54 -0500
Subject: Re: CRASH CONTAGION
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
From: Wade Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <LAW2-OE15ivR0wzGDCv00007e2d@hotmail.com>
Message-Id: <B55D20CE-06CA-11D6-9B57-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 01:41 , Paul Marsden wrote:

    > I'm not sure Vincent said that experiments showing
    > disinhibition due to media is bogus research

    Bogus may be way too strong a word. More in the sense of 'You
    can dismiss natural experiments for not
    isolating Ind Variable and Dep Variable, and you can dismiss
    laboratory experiments becasue they do the opposite', where
    being dismissable is enough to invalidate.

    Once we've seen a spike in behavior due to exposure to that
    behavior, why do we blame the paper the message is written on?

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 20:03:33 GMT