Dr. [Mike] Shea's net experiment [was: Re: Re:Thad's email address]

[Robert J. Granvin]

In article <1991Feb6.175014.3949 at limbic.ssdl.com> gil at limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes:
>In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710 at kodak.kodak.com> crassi at kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi) writes:
>>Dr. Shea was doing what I understand was a psychological profile
>>study of the personality types who try to become as someone who
>>replied to his article put it so nicely, "Net.Gods", and their
>>minions. 
> [...]
>Finally, if this had been an experiment, which I really doubt it
> [...]
>>Personally I'd rather not spawn such a situation, but I believe when
>>his research paper on the project was reviewed, it got a standing
>>ovation thanks to those who replied, those you mention in your posting.
>>I also believe his paper used direct quotations from the net replies.
> [...]
>If, indeed, Mike did present a research paper of the calibre you
>present, then my congratulations to him on a job well-done.  However,
> [...]
>followups directed to poster.  If replies must be directed to the
>net, make them to sci.psychology where they belong.

I know, I know... I posted a reply... :-)

I only want to make one comment.  I have been a "full time" user, poster,
and reader of Usenet since the days when 1200 baud transfers were the 
norm, 2400 baud was a luxury, and average daily newsfeeds were noticeably
under 1/4 MB.... I remember the hub bub that occurred sometime later when
AT&T announced that Unix System III was now out of production and 
introduced Unix System V.  If you get the idea I've been around a while,
even though not as long as some of definate reknown, you are correct.

In those many years, I have seen _many_ "psychological research activities"
take place on Usenet.  Nearly all have the stated objective of observing
faceless reactions to a hostile environment created by the researcher.

I have never _once_ found such a "research" to have ever occurred.  Even
those who publicly claimed during the "Events" that they were doing so,
never could come up with a conclusion or WHY they were doing this
"research."  All research must have a stated goal and objective.  If you
don't know what you hope to accomplish, all you will get is a pile of
useless numbers.  There never were control groups, abstracts, or planned
uses of the data.

In the end, nearly every one of those "research projects" fell into one
of two categories:

	1) Someone decided patently to infuriate a lot of people for the
	   sheer amusement of doing it.  There were a few accepted terms
	   for that, but I won't indicate them here... :-)

	2) Someone thought about their assininity, and realized that if
	   they professed that it was "all an experiment," they could
	   probably "get off the hook" and clear their name without having
	   to lose face by apologizing.

#2 was by far the most common in those days.  #1 seems to be a lot more
common today.  Never once have I found any evidence of any research ever
having taken place.

If Mr. Shea did indeed produce a paper, I would greatly appreciate seeing
it.  I would like to see evidence that such an activity took place (yes,
I'm VERY skeptical), and I would also like to see the basis for the 
"research" and what it will hope to accomplish.  Based on the articles
which I had archived and gone through, I would say that the execution of
this "research" was extremely poor.  I'd be interested in seeing a writeup
which explained the proposed approach and justified its manner.  If it 
indeed was a scientifically valid paper, I would then be quite interested 
in the results.  Psychological profiles are a mild interest of mine, and
I'm sure this would be of extreme interest to a few personal and business
acquaintances who do a large amount of psychological research and profiling
(yes, I used to work for a company that did analysis along these lines.
They'd love to see it, since it's a type of research they'll never get into.)

If the "research" took place, I place a request for a distribution of the
journal article and results.  I also request a bibliography of the journals
where it was published, or which journals are still pending.  Documentation 
of where the paper was presented (and which proceedings it would have, or
will, appear in) would be appreciated as well.  Otherwise, the whole issue 
is closed yet once again, as it was before with no changes, since I don't 
believe such a paper exists.  Call it a bet placed on the odds that have 
been set forth for the past decade.  In other words, prove it to me.

(Followups to me.  I wouldn't want to miss a copy of this paper!)

There.  'nuf said.

-- 
Robert J. Granvin \\\\\\\\                            rjg at sialis.com : INTERNET
University of Minnesota \\\              ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg : UUCP
School of Statistics \\\\\\\             rjg%sialis.com at uunet.uu.net : BITNET
                          Cleared by Network Censors