conjecture isn't data

On 2/23/2016 6:25 PM, wrote:
Why do you suppose that is?


... the helmet is part of the uniform...

Yes, after decades of intense advertising, lobbying of legislators,
inflated claims of effectiveness, passage of laws, discussions with
editors about photo policy, "donations" to helmet-promoting
organizations, back-room deals with race officials, distribution of
scare literature, counter-protests by professional riders...

After decades of that, weird plastic hats are part of the "uniform." If
you want to look like a Real Cyclist, you're expected to wear an
expensive and uniquely weird hat of dubious utility. Unlike millions
upon millions of cyclists the world around, and down through history.

There's no accounting for fashion. Even artificially manufactured fashion.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:25:15 PM UTC, wrote:

14% fish flying to Bermuda for the weekend were blue and yellow.

`Not a lot of people know that -- Michael Caine

Andre Jute

AMuzi writes:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/27/2/289

One man's take.

Me? I raise a skeptic eyebrow but I have no opinion.

The design of the experiment seems a bit strange, but I'm not familar
with psychology experiments. No real control. Is the number of
subjects enough to expect statistical significance? Given that the
subjects experienced no actual danger, either real or perceived, it's
hard to come up with a rationale for the difference other than
statistical variation. Maybe the polystrene outgas is affecting the
decision making 8-).

--
Joe Riel

On 24/02/16 13:25, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/27/2/289

One man's take.

Me? I raise a skeptic eyebrow but I have no opinion.

The design of the experiment seems a bit strange, but I'm not familar
with psychology experiments. No real control. Is the number of
subjects enough to expect statistical significance? Given that the
subjects experienced no actual danger, either real or perceived, it's
hard to come up with a rationale for the difference other than
statistical variation. Maybe the polystrene outgas is affecting the
decision making 8-).


Most people experience a bit of a shock when a balloon pops as they are
blowing it up. Though the danger is not real, it is likely perceived.

--
JS

It's a crap experiment. No control group, shoddy statistics, tendentious assumptions, etc.

From the sort of standard mortivatiional psych unknown to engineers, there is a difference in attitude and execution, including in risk compensation, between those who voluntarily wear helmets and those forced by law to wear helmets. I think the first group will be aware of the possibility and guard against it. But proof is another matter entirely and will take a good deal of money, manpower and time, not one of these el cheap hit and run studies.. What's more, since helmets are so contentious among cyclists, an additional element in the matrix, or for prior exclusion -- how is yet another matter -- is whether subjects believe or not in the efficacy helmets. Every cell added to the matrix makes the study bigger and more expensive to achieve an equally reliable result.

Given the presence of willfully incompetent or crooked "statisticians" like Krygowski on both sides, whatever test design even a top professional comes up with will be tiresome contested by the clowns on one side or the other..

Andre Jute
The idiots will always be with us -- Jesus of Galilee

James writes:

On 24/02/16 13:25, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/27/2/289

One man's take.

Me? I raise a skeptic eyebrow but I have no opinion.

The design of the experiment seems a bit strange, but I'm not familar
with psychology experiments. No real control. Is the number of
subjects enough to expect statistical significance? Given that the
subjects experienced no actual danger, either real or perceived, it's
hard to come up with a rationale for the difference other than
statistical variation. Maybe the polystrene outgas is affecting the
decision making 8-).


Most people experience a bit of a shock when a balloon pops as they
are blowing it up. Though the danger is not real, it is likely
perceived.

Yeah, but they weren't even blowing up a real balloon,
just an animated balloon on a computer screen.
How scary can that be?

--
Joe Riel

Frank that outburst was just awful are you one of the millions bashing brains on an icy sidewalk in Demoing ?

Good grief

On 24/02/16 14:47, Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 24/02/16 13:25, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/27/2/289

One man's take.

Me? I raise a skeptic eyebrow but I have no opinion.

The design of the experiment seems a bit strange, but I'm not familar
with psychology experiments. No real control. Is the number of
subjects enough to expect statistical significance? Given that the
subjects experienced no actual danger, either real or perceived, it's
hard to come up with a rationale for the difference other than
statistical variation. Maybe the polystrene outgas is affecting the
decision making 8-).


Most people experience a bit of a shock when a balloon pops as they
are blowing it up. Though the danger is not real, it is likely
perceived.

Yeah, but they weren't even blowing up a real balloon,
just an animated balloon on a computer screen.
How scary can that be?


True, and I've seen more scary things on a computer screen than an
animation of a bursting balloon.

--
JS

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 2:52:54 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 24/02/16 14:47, Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 24/02/16 13:25, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/27/2/289

One man's take.

Me? I raise a skeptic eyebrow but I have no opinion.

The design of the experiment seems a bit strange, but I'm not familar
with psychology experiments. No real control. Is the number of
subjects enough to expect statistical significance? Given that the
subjects experienced no actual danger, either real or perceived, it's
hard to come up with a rationale for the difference other than
statistical variation. Maybe the polystrene outgas is affecting the
decision making 8-).


Most people experience a bit of a shock when a balloon pops as they
are blowing it up. Though the danger is not real, it is likely
perceived.

Yeah, but they weren't even blowing up a real balloon,
just an animated balloon on a computer screen.
How scary can that be?


True, and I've seen more scary things on a computer screen than an
animation of a bursting balloon.

--
JS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globophobia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php... ASearch&go=Go