ellauri100.html on line 435: Note that there is a great deal of controversy as to the exact meaning of what these reaction time associations actually mean, so please take your results with a grain of salt. While a great deal of previous research has validated the use of such procedures to detect associations of group level bias across groups, the use of IAT procedures to measure individual ethicality is still in development and all of these procedures have been validated probibalistically, at the group level, rather than being validated as being absolutely diagnostic for individuals. That being said, many (though not all) people have found validity in their implicit scores and have found there to be some real psychological process that tracks implicit associations.
ellauri111.html on line 168: Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
ellauri285.html on line 757: Later, but of more critical importance, the Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper´s mathematical claims underlying the critical positivity ratio were suspect. Brown contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor Alan Sokal and psychology professor Harris Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper´s data (hereafter the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal). They argued that Losada´s earlier work on positive psychology and Fredrickson and Losada´s 2005 critical positivity ratio paper contained "numerous fundamental conceptual and mathematical errors", errors of a magnitude that completely invalidated their claims.
3