Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Really.
I dunno though, Monty. I think the fact that the bloke concerned is an astounding tool and the fact he was playing computer games don't have to be intrinsically linked.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:38, 1 reply, 14 years ago)
Some wanker has 'proved' that fizzy drinks make you carry a knife because children who drink more than five cans of pop a week are x% more likely to carry weapons. I spend my entire life sighing at the stupidity of others but this was espcially poor.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:45, Reply)
I think it was more he was showing a *possible* link between excessive consumption and violent tendancies.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:47, Reply)
Only bogans read that.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:49, Reply)
As they often reach different conclusions.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:51, Reply)
This is, I'm afraid, the problem with a significant amount of social science research (and, sadly, increasing amounts of straight scientific research, too) - you can't just quote two disconnected statistics and claim anything you like about a link. The only connection here is "children" ... I might as well say "there are lots of sharks off the coast of california" and "california has lots of gun crime" and link those through "california" to campaign for guns to be taken off sharks. It's about the same level of statistical relevance.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 8:59, Reply)
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:08, Reply)
It drives me fucking nuts.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:13, Reply)
Correlation does not imply causation.
It has often been argued that reporting of science stories should only be done by someone with an understanding of the subject, rather than a journalist looking for the angle of the story.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:15, Reply)
EPSRC developed this thing called NOISE to allow certain younger specialists in their field to advise print and TV media over science stories. The papers ignored us because the "science" correspondents thought we were after their jobs and every time I ended up in a meeting with TV execs they assumed I just wanted a presenting role. They just don't "get" that people might not all be vacuous fame hungry arseholes and it makes them utterly impossible to deal with.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:24, Reply)
was with the BBC in Glasgow. We were told it was for a round-table discussion of future directions in science programming, and it was a full day. We had a 45 minute meeting, then got a tour of their studios (oooh, fuck me, are we a school party now?) and then spent the whole afternoon in screen tests. I've refused every meeting since.
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:33, Reply)
Public interest in scientific matters increases if the presenter is hot. This works for both sexes: there are a lot more housewives
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:37, Reply)
but we weren't doing this to get on telly, that's the point. We were just looking to offer insight into improving science programs generally
(, Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:51, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread