From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 28 Mar 2005 - 05:14:59 GMT
At 01:18 PM 27/03/05 -0800, you wrote:
>>For at least ten years I though a worthwhile research project would
>>to find the kids who were in that class and interview them and a
>>control group to see if the experience changed the course of their
>>lives. Now I am not so sure you would find anything useful by
>>groping in the dark without a theory to guide such an investigation.
>Jones taught only 1/3 of the Contemporary History classes that year. The
>other classes could provide comparisons.
While that's true, I had rather use the same class from a nearby high
school such as Palo Alto as a control because the kids at Cubberly were
exposed to the school newspaper story.
>But, as you suggest, a hypothesis testing approach seems unlikely to
>produce much of value.
Especially when you don't have a theory about what happened. :-)
>Case study methodology seems more appropriate. :-)
The question I used to think was important was to see if the experience
made the kids any less likely to be taken advantage of in their adult
lives. Because the group was relatively small, it would take really
careful study design to get meaningful results. What you would be looking
for might be called a "gullibility index."
I have known parents who teased children with "tall tales" when they were
little. I have often wondered if a family tradition of teasing kids this
way led to them building "input filters" that critically examined incoming
data--even from their parents. There has been a great deal of noise about
teaching critical thinking skills to school children usually at the high
school level. That might be *way* too late if this skill is like language
On the other hand, gullibility might be largely determined by genes. It is
certainly easy to come up with evidence supporting either hypothesis.
Another thought would be to try this on current school 10th grade students,
especially if a bit of study indicated it didn't hurt the Cubberly
kids. Would the results be different today? I.e., was there something
different about these kids born in the middle of the baby boom era?
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 28 Mar 2005 - 05:33:37 GMT