I am trying to remember why I have picked that up, but I am pretty sure I got it from the library once. It will have to wait until next semester – there was one copy at $19.99, but that was only “acceptable” condition, which in my experience usually means “beat to hell.” Not that I have time to read it now anyways – I have two of the recommendations from your colleague on the brain thread and little enough time for pleasure reading (though I am considering working neuro-evo into a topic for my psych paper this semester)…

In principle one can do the study of chance to get shot while having a gun vs. chance without having a gun in a number of different situations (different cities, countries, etc.), and the results could very well be different. It could be different cultural norms, different reasons why people would have guns, etc. One could easily imagine that in a society where the main reason you have a gun is being a criminal would lead to much better correlation between having a gun and getting shot as opposed to a society where many people hunt with guns.

In both cases, it could simply be that the correlations that you found in one culture does not apply to another, and someone might correctly claim that.

I remember recently I read about a study done on a isolated society in (if I remember right) Madagascar. They found that children of women with many partners were more likely to survive than those that didn’t. Which is opposite of the standard “explanation” of western cultural norms where we assume that for men being promiscuous is “naturally” advantageous whereas for women it is better to find a steady man.

Of course that’s not to say that the inherent “but I’m special” thinking doesn’t exist (it certainly does), but there are other reasons to think that the conclusions of a certain study do or don’t apply to your own situation.

I certainly knew how to do the test right, my ex could certainly read the instructions properly and follow them correctly, she simply couldn’t wait until the proper time. Easily 3/4 of the tests she used were done improperly because they were done too soon. It had nothing to do with being “dumb”.

Ha! You should listen more closely!!!

But seriously, no, I don’t think including cops as cops is good. If there was such a thing as a person who has a job as a cop but was a civilian without any copiness in the sample that would be a tough call, but it would have to be someone on vacation or something.

It’s a little like looking at driving skills and including what happens over on the race track at the same time you are doing your study.

I am one of those people. I don’t think it is valid, but I can see why one would say that it is. I asked more as a measure of consistency than anything else.

Seriously though – I really do not think that your position is dumb. You have often said things I do not agree with. You have also said things that annoy me, or even make me rather angry. You have said things that make me think – whether I ultimately come to agree with you or not. And of course you have said many things that I agree with completely.

You have, to my recollection, never said anything that was dumb.