Blair: Discussion #1

Blair: Discussion #1

by Blair Moore -
Number of replies: 4

  1.  Greetings my name is Blair Moore I am 17 and I attend Tallulah Falls School and I am a senior. I am a sibling of four and my parents mix up our names a lot, all of our names start with a B. I also really enjoy running track and I love fashion.
  2. After reading the two articles I’ve come to the conclusion that the two articles aren’t the most scientifically accurate. The two articles lack size and information. the fact that the article "Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Problems in Children" lacks the length of time that the research was conducted in doesn't really help the credibility. The same article also chose to do Cross-sectional research instead of longitudinal due to the lack of data “However, longitudinal data of early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems have been lacking.” (Christakis)  The concern for the data is really good but Cross-sectional research isn’t the most accurate research type of the two. In the other article "Frequent TV Watching Shortens Kids' Attention Spans" There aren’t many stats to really back up the reason as to why kids have shorter attention spans only how many 2-year-olds watch TV and how many have them in their room “Kaiser Family Foundation survey last year found that about 2 out of 5 children under the age of 2 watch television every day, and a quarter of them have TV’s in their own rooms” (Elias) The stats are interesting but they aren’t enough to lead to concrete evidence behind the shorter attention spans of children. 
  3. One thing I learned from my textbook that I found interesting was the section about designing an experiment and learning all the different types such as double bind studies or single bind studies. I think that experiments could be fun and I would love to try to do one.

Thank you for your time in reading this :) 


Christakis A. Dimitri M.D. etc. (2004) Pediatrics, 113(4), 708.

Elias, Marilyn. Frequent TV watching shortens kids’ Attention Spans. USA Today. 2004, August 30.



340 words

In reply to Blair Moore

Re: Blair: Discussion #1

by Timothy Beck -

Hello Blair,

      After reading your response I believe that you and I both agree about the same flaws of the data but for different reasons. The data presented in the provided articles seems strangely limited, the data often presented is irrelevant to the actual data being presented, for example, when discussing the number of kids who watch television daily and how many kids have televisions in their rooms. This information is interesting as well as alarming, it does not correctly reflect the information needed to conclude a relevant answer to the test subject. I believe there is a wide variety of missing variables needed to draw an accurate conclusion of the data presented (such as a genetic disposition for ADHD).

Thank you for your insight,

      Timothy Beck

127 words

In reply to Blair Moore

Re: Blair: Discussion #1

by Bohan Dong -

Hello, Blair!

I agree with your conclusion that there are indeed aspects that may affect the scientific accuracy and credibility of both articles. Issues such as the limited information in the articles, the choice of research methodology, and the lack of longitudinal data over time may have affected the scientific validity of the articles.

In scientific research, there is a real need for adequate data, comprehensive research methodology and sufficient time to draw conclusions, and it is desirable to conduct longitudinal studies over time to validate the results.


Bohan

89 words

In reply to Blair Moore

Re: Blair: Discussion #1

by Addyson McCoy -


Hello Blair!

You did a great job explaining all the data you found and  why you think the research was not scientifically accurate. I agree with you, Christakis's data was not extremely credible because of the lack of time and the use of cross-sectional research because their longitudinal data was lacking. I also believe that the data and experiment for the Kaiser Family Foundation study was interesting and could have been an excellent study; however, there wasn't enough evidence to support their hypothesis. You did a good job explaining your reasoning on why you believe these research studies are not scientifically accurate. Great work Blair, I really enjoyed reading your response! 



111 words

In reply to Blair Moore

Re: Blair: Discussion #1

by Lucia Rajkovic -

Hi Blair! Your observations toward the articles are spot on, at least in my opinion. The lacking in both articles can be seen, however, there is a difference and one of them could be considered scientific with a couple of tweaks to the experiments and the paper report. I also agree with you that psychological scientists have done a great job in experimenting with their theories and conducting good research toward proving their claims. The particular experiment that has caught my eye is Pavlov’s experiment with the salivating dog. It is amazing how responses to certain stimuli can be influenced and modified in a way that will be suitable for something. Some might even say that people are trained too, in many ways. From the day we are born to the day we die, there is always something that makes us think of something else by instance. What experiment was your favorite?


152 words