0
comments
************
I agree Drew. There is a lot of literature out there on HIT. The
problem is one must really find someone who who's what they are doing
to show proper implementation.
************
This smells of confirmation bias to me. It sounds like an ad hoc
hypothesis to explain why there is a lack of scientific literature
supporting the equivalence of single versus multiple sets.
There are dozens and dozens of studies that fail to support the
existence of ESP. The response of ESP believers? "The researchers
don't know how to design good ESP experiments"
thoughts of the onlookers interfere with ESP transmission which is
why the researchers aren't getting results." No matter how many
studies come out that fail to support any existence of ESP, this is
the response to explain away why research doesn't support ESP's
existence. Never do they consider the strong probability that ESP
just doesn't exist.
I would contend that I see the same thing coming out of the HIT
camp. No matter how many studies come out supporting a superiority
of multiple sets (quite a few have come out over the past few years,
from different research groups), this camp will find some way to
explain away why the study results don't fit their already performed
conclusions. And I suspect that, if my meta-regression gets
published, we'll see more of the same.
James Krieger, M.S., M.S.
Research Associate
20/20 Lifestyles
http://www.2020life
Bellevue, WA
Editor, Journal of Pure Power
http://www.jopp.
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
March
0 comments: