Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA11468 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
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?
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 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 20:03:33 GMT