From: Will Bueche <willb3d.nul> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:13:52 -0500 Archived: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:32:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Starship Memories >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:11:20 EST >Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Randle <snip> >There are two things that bother me about this study. First, the >assumption that alien abduction is not grounded in reality >without providing the proof for that statement. <snip> >Second, the assumption that her comparison group, Vietnam >Veterans, had combat experiences known to be real. I would like >to know how she validated that and would guess that if someone >came forward with these self-described tales of combat, they >were accepted at face value. Kevin, Two quick clarifications. One, Richard McNally's study is not mentioned in the Harvard article; I brought it up because I felt that Susan Clancy's research (the word-association test described in the article) was weak research compared to that of her supervisor (McNally), which I was personally familiar with. So just to clarify, I brought up a second Harvard study which had little to do with the word-association test that Susan Clancy did. Susan Clancy's control group were not veterans, they were just average folk. In that light, one needs to ask why the experiencers made more errors in the word recall - were they trying too hard to establish that their recall ability was good? I expect so. But it could also be that experiencers' minds are more conceptual and less verbal... a trend seen in philosophers, if I am not mistaken, yes? Her study is provocative, but not for the reasons she thinks. Two, the Veterans in McNally's as-yet-unpublished study were not a control group in the typical sense of individuals-that-were- selected, but rather, as I understand it, they have a database from past decades that shows the average physiological responses of a vast number of veterans. I beleive they also ran some regular folks as controls, ran average people afresh, to see if average people could be prompted to have the responses seen in both of those groups. But obviously we'll need to see the published paper, and I look forward to that. It is nice that Harvard has a newfound openness towards research. (Too bad they won't compensate Dr. Mack for the $100,000 he blew in legal defense when they weren't so open in the past!). But to your core point, that some of the Vietnam veterans who comprised their database may have been fakers trying to get compensation: That is indeed a fact of life but the data from any such fakers would I expect have been averaged out, if we allow that only a fraction would have been such people. If fakers are dominant in number, then of course your point stands, as they'd throw off the averages if they were dominant.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp